Of course I'm sure some people would claim this is 4D chess or what not but.. sometimes the person doing something crazy is just crazy at the end of the day.
Of course I'm sure some people would claim this is 4D chess or what not but.. sometimes the person doing something crazy is just crazy at the end of the day.
I'm tempted to think (hope? dream?) that the markets and trade will rebound if all this chaos makes American politics swing back towards an interest in global stability, but I think anyone partnering with the US would do so VERY carefully and right now the entire world is plotting how to remove US dependencies.
Doesn't work. We opened trade to China in the '70s. They took advantage of us, stealing IP, manipulating currency, paying their people terrible wages, crapping all over the environment. We let their companies freely in the US, they very severely restricted US business ventures in China.
Detroit, a former shining city in the industrial heartland, is now a bandit infested ruin.
In the US, a person used to be able to graduate high school and get a job that could support owning a house with a yard, a non-working spouse, a car, and multiple children.
For me, coming from the Rust Belt, it's incredibly, painfully obvious that globalization's basically destroyed the US economy. I'm constantly amazed to meet well-meaning, intelligent people who don't seem to understand this fact.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per...
Even industrial output the US is second highest, and it's closer to first place than second.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sec...
And supporting a whole family on a single income well was a very narrow window of time, and it required the US to have no real economic competitors. Where US workers had no competition on the world stage, but their output was sold on the world stage. So even if the US go isolationist that's still never coming back.
But then how were other countries able to have this while having economic competitors?
It's worse in a lot of countries where tax policy disadvantages the pre-1960 norm like the UK.
It's not that this situation was unsustainable or only attainable for the US; this situation should have been the norm, with the additional income just providing extra luxury or time off, but instead we got screwed through artificial scarcity and more money going to the very rich instead of the working and middle class.
A lot of the change there is not down to China but limiting the ability to build a cheap house through nimbyism and regulation and then competition from other dual income / high earners bidding everything up. You could fix it by allocating everyone a bit of land and letting them build whatever on it even if it was just a shack. It's not really trade that's the main problem.
Look at any graph of earnings by quintile over time, or of income or wealth inequality today, and you'll see that the fact that builders can't cut corners and sell us crappy houses and apartments that will fall down around our ears is far from the primary reason we have trouble affording things today.
Rust Belt isn't the entire US economy. Blaming where the US is today on globalization is probably 30 years too late.
The US economy has created enormous wealth. Domestic policies on how to spread around the prosperity to all citizens is where the US failed. Think more of what Sanders and AOC talk about, not bringing back factories that will be 99% automated anyway. For one example, how can the most prosperous country in the world have a majority of its bankruptcies tied to medical debt? And somehow people want to blame China or globalization or some other boogie man?
And the part about life just being totally unaffordable now isn’t really to do with China stealing from the US - housing is catastrophically expensive in many countries, and is more to do with how it has evolved as an asset class than trade relationships.
That was never sustainable in the long run and no one can bring that back.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/march/evoluti...
The US is going to normalize with other western nations as we enter a multi-polar world.
The problem is Republicans don't accept that and think they can return to the 1950s.
Statistically the US manufactures more than it ever has on a $ amount, and is the #2 manufacturer in the world. Until recently, the US economy was the envy of the world. The trade situation the US setup did and does work, and along with other policies, led to enormous prosperity that was just unevenly distributed.
Where the US failed, and mostly around GOP and now Trump policies, is not spreading the growing prosperity to more of its citizens. Given this enormous prosperity where is universal healthcare, free/low cost college, UBI, etc...?
Unfortunately, the people who really need these policies have mostly voted against them for decades. Their anger is legitimate, but it's misplaced. Being angry at "globalization" or "illegals" or pick a group is a misdirection fed by years of AM radio and Fox News. Now we are seeing the cycle continue, but this time the US economy may really be destroyed.
> stealing IP
Edward Snowden's leaks reveal that the US engages in wide-scale economic espionage. Additionally, the US also uses extra-territorial means of coercion to acquire cutting-edge technology -- see e.g. the Alstom case.
> manipulating currency
For many decades the US has been able to print money like a madman while the rest of the world absorbs the costs by virtue of the USD being the primary reserve currency globally. The US is also not above strong-arming its allies into appreciating their own currencies to boost American exports -- see the Plaza Accord, which partly contributed to Japan's subsequent Lost Decades.
> paying their people terrible wages
China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty in the last 20 years. In the US wages have remained stagnant for the working class over the same period, if not longer. Frustration among the working class -- which is entirely justified and understandable, by the way -- is probably one of the reasons why Trump was re-elected.
> crapping all over the environment
Chinese cities today are mostly clean and quiet, increasingly powered by renewable energy with more and more electric vehicles driven on the roads. The Chinese are also undertaking massive greening projects, such as the Great Green Wall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall_(China) On a per-capita basis the Chinese emit far less carbon dioxide than Americans do.
The US, especially when compared to almost any other developed country, is in no moral position to be sanctimonious about environmental issues.
Don't blame other countries -- China or not -- for America's own catastrophic, chronic failure in leadership and subpar policymaking, especially when America has enjoyed so many entrenched advantages for so many decades (and still does).
I've noticed this also, having spent a lot of time in both places. Some would say this is part of the American national character, and it's the darker side of hard-nosed individualistic cowboys, etc. The famous opening speech of Patton comes to mind here:
> When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. Now, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.
There's at least some truth to this and the mean-spirited arrogance/strength in the rest of the speech being in line with national character, I think it has to be admitted. This seems like the guy was certainly never cut out to be a diplomat or act with moderation, and maybe most Americans aren't. That said though.. maybe a deeper issue is that suffering (economic or otherwise) changes people. Makes them merely hypocrtical in the best case, aggravated and mean on average, or in the worst case positively cruel. A lot of America has not been ok for a long time now.
China does not WANT to do this. They have tons of protectionism. They give tons of preference to their own firms and protect their domestic market from foreign companies. This enables their firms to grow strong. This is a strategy which has been practiced by many many developing nations. They can't live without it and don't want to.
Why does gmerc think that China is going to rewrite its entire economic policy in order to take "market share?" We usually use that term to mean, you are selling stuff and want to sell to more customers because you make more money. In this context however we are talking about BUYING more stuff - why would it be sane for China to dominate the act of buying everything it can on the planet? (At the inevitable erosion of its manufacturing base - just like what happened to the USA when it opened up its markets.)
I mean you can think whatever you want about Trump and his actions, but it just makes zero sense to think that China will step in and fill the old role of the US here, when doing so is a polar opposite from their current trade strategy and would probably collapse their economy. And that gets to the real elephant in the room, which is that no one wants to do America's "old job" anymore. No one else wants to be the ubiquitous buyer of everything with big trade deficits all over the place, the vast majority of countries on earth defend their domestic markets and preference their local firms more than pre-Trump America did - exactly what are these new alliances that are going to arise, when everyone wants to sell to other countries, and no one wants to buy?
I happen to live in a country whose #1 export market was the USA and is being slapped with some of the largest tariffs. Time will tell of course but at the moment they pretty much just seem to be fucked and all they are saying is they are ready to come to the table and negotiate with the US as soon as possible. There just doesn't seem to be a ton of demand for their exports elsewhere - it's not like every country on earth isn't out there pimping its exports to anyone who will listen, pretty much all the time. If China or the EU had a burning need for a couple hundred billion dollars more of shellfish or textiles or what have you, they'd already be buying it.
I understand that argument I've never seen it spelled out by anyone other than me. I only brought it up as a last effort to explain the possible thinking behind these actions. It still won't make sense because even if you believe that you are the top dog and you can effortlessly bully others then you'd have to realize that you won't be the top dog in every situation all the time everywhere at the same time. There will be many instances where others who previously leaned your way for free will now look to get paid for leaning your way.
While they may "talk the talk", Europe doesn't "Walk the walk"! Europe has strong tariffs on imports. The USA is now simply equalizing the situation. Here's an example:
Automobile Tariffs by Country 2025: put your cursor on a country to see its automobile tariff. European tariffs on autos are roughly four times those of the USA. While you're there you can look up the "sales tax" too!
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/automobil...
European companies have had tariffs on USA products for decades. Those tariffs protect and maintain industries within a country. The USA failed to maintain that protection: the USA lost jobs and harmed industry which guts an economy. Meanwhile, for example, Germany protected it's auto industry with tariffs on cars from abroad.
My feeling is that "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
There's no doubt that the "Law of Comparative Advantage"(LCA) in economics is a valid argument for trade. However, the LCA is almost always argued in the absence of externalities: costs generated by use of the LCA are usually not taken into account when examining a full economy: job losses, industry shrinkage and failure, etc.
The US has benefited massively from soaking up the best brains globally. That's not going to keep happening; I have plenty of colleagues already who are refusing to travel to the US. We may well even swing into brain drain as Trump et al move closer to executing their cultural revolution.
Meanwhile, all those other countries will start trading more with each other. The US stands to be left out. Won't happen overnight, but Trump is pissing away the advantages. When the dollar isn't the global currency anymore things will really start to hurt.
I highly doubt people were ok with that because the US had low tariffs on their countries exports to the US.
If you (the US) massively subsidize the world order through your financial markets, military defense, and foreign aid, it’s only fair that you get to take advantage of your position.
Historically, the US has done this at the expense of its working class. Now there is a populist feeling that we are owed a long due “payback” for our generosity.
The Bernie/AOC left believe the payback is owed by our elites, who enriched themselves by austerity and hollowing out our industrial base.
The Trump/MAGA right believe the payback is owed by other countries — freeloaders that have benefited from our technology, military defense, and foreign aid while simultaneously being net exporters to the US.
To the latter crowd, the kind of “bullying” behavior you describe is actually the equivalent of a gentle giant who never stood up for himself finally deciding that he won’t take any more shit.
Edit: To any downvoters, please comment with where you think I’m wrong. I’m not defending any policy, just providing what I believe is an accurate representation of the populist American mindset described in the parent comment.
Assuming this generous interpretation is accurate, then it's a problem of ignorance of the people holding this view. Characterizing other countries as 'freeloaders' is exactly that - ignorance.
People don't want to admit wealth distribution is the problem because that would make them "communists". It's an emotional response. I'm scared how far they take it.
Whether or not the “right wing working class” are right in their root cause analysis, the domestic situation in the US is catastrophic enough to demand explanation:
“If we are the richest country on earth, why can’t I afford a house and healthcare?”
Answer 1: You are being taken advantage of by wealthy elites within your country!Answer 2: The whole world has made Americans front the bill for a regime of global peace, security, and a trusted reserve currency, at the cost of you, the American worker!
Depending on which answer you choose, and which camp you ally with, your worldview will differ.
Dona nobis pacem!
If you are referring to taking wealth by force from people that earned it and giving to people that didn't earn it, yes it's 'communist'. There's nothing emotional about a methodology that has failed over and over again.
China popped the real estate bubble, collapsing entire industry giants and making the “elites” swallow the financial downturn. Literally allowing the “poor” to refinance their homes on the back of the “rich”, because they believe housing isn’t for speculation, but for living in.
Tariffs without windfall profits tax will be further wealth redistribution, from the poor to the wealthy
High inequalities is proven to be bad for development, so clearly there is a point where people have too much and it's harmful to society.
Ergo it would be immoral to allow some to hoard wealth infinitely, just because they can.
Like taking money generated by the labourer and giving it to the company owners to share with their idle families? And threatening unemployment and precariousness/homelessness for those who disagree? This seems to have failed again indeed
No, that's capitalist. That's literally the core of capitalism.
No, it's taxation. A pretty common phenomenon.
I'm not trying to jump on you for having captured it, but the problem is that this is wholly nonsensical - the repayment for benefiting from our technology and military defense IS the net exporting to the US (via holding our currency). That "logic" is still based on having one foot in the paradigm of the financial engineering puppetmasters where getting real physical goods is somehow a liability rather than a benefit!
For sure, this enviable position has had a corrosive effect on our economy. But the inability to deal with that has been wholly down to self-inflicted policy wounds of previous decades - chiefly led by the Republican party marketing a game of fake "fiscal responsibility" whereby the government is prevented from taking deliberate action to mitigate the displacement of industry and workers, while the increased (but now centralized) wealth from offshoring (and other technological/economic gains) was merely handed over to the banksters in the form of low-interest loans that went into driving up the asset bubble.
My comment was intended to give the GP poster insight into the mindset of Americans who revel in the “bullying” behavior they described.
But one point of inquiry — how are foreign aid programs like USAID mercenary? Even if they are CIA fronts, it’s hard to argue that they are in any way economically extractive.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2025/01/0...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/us/politics/trump-nsc-fir...
A central problem with this administration is it's headed by a psychopath, who has a long track record of being an untrustworthy liar. Could he pick an economics team that can actually make hard choices that are generally better for America? It's possible. But it's also possible these are just more kooks, or corrupt people looking to grift, or people who think like Peter Thiel, that democracy is over and needs to be replaced by a monarch.
My take? Impeach and remove Trump from office. Do it now. If the country wants these kinds of policies, they need to do it through the Congress. Not through a president, sane or insane.
https://financialpost.com/news/stephen-miran-economist-trump...
> Currently a senior strategist at Hudson Bay Capital Management LP and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York City, Miran holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University and his dissertation advisor was Martin Feldstein, an eminent American economist who chaired the CEA during the Reagan administration.
> Miran.. points to Trump’s application of tariffs on China in 2018-2019, which he argues “passed with little discernible macroeconomic consequence.” He adds that during that time the U.S. dollar rose to offset the macroeconomic impact of the tariffs and resulted in significant revenue for the U.S. Treasury.. “The effective tariff rate on Chinese imports increased by 17.9 percentage points from the start of the trade war in 2018 to the maximum tariff rate in 2019,” the report said. “As the financial markets digested the news, the Chinese renminbi depreciated against the dollar over this period by 13.7 per cent, so that the after-tariff USD import price rose by 4.1 per cent.”
What we do know is that Trump disproportionately attacks people who criticize him, withholds security protection from them, and sometimes even sends mobs to have them assassinated.
It also took some time before Mark Esper told the public that Trump ordered that protesters be shot.
Therefore, I think it's possible we won't get Stephen Miran's honest assessment in the near future. We'll just have to wait and see.
> The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) is a United States agency within the Executive Office of the President established in 1946, which advises the president of the United States on economic policy. The CEA provides much of the empirical research for the White House and prepares the publicly-available annual Economic Report of the President.
Look at the number of multibillionaires the US has acquired over the past 40 years. The trillion dollar megacorps. The many millionaires in Congress. Those are the people who owe payback to the American public. But those are also the people who control the American public, control their news, and feed them misinformation.
I mean, in the specific realm of trade wars, that’s probably more correct, because the game theory of the thing tends to make retaliating against the aggressor nigh-inevitable, particularly in a “country v world” situation.
The pump'n'dump scheme against Ukraine will forever change how small countries see the US support for democracy, even if it changes back to the previous status-quo.
All the US had to do was supply it's old weapons to Ukraine whilst replenishing it's stock (creating jobs in America) and things would have been fine. Now we're all in a world were Europeans are openly talking about developing nuclear weapons. Taiwan is totally on it's own, and Greenland is worried about being annexed.
There's real trouble coming.
Well, no, it's not fine, partly because we can't replenish our stocks fast enough. Ukraine is consuming nearly the entire planet's production capacity of Patriot missiles, eating enough of our ATACMS stockpile that it makes Combatant Commanders nervous, and more. To say nothing of the argument "supply Ukraine for as long as it takes, even if that means indefinitely" never made any sense; actions taken without a clear, achievable end goal in mind are just a waste of resources.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/d...
https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/us-defence-industrial-base-...
In fact they are reopening and massively developing an airbase that will be hosting nukes near Colmar, 200 km from the German border. That's a 6 minute flight for a Dassault Rafale.
“The Ukraine war is great because it creates US jobs through weapons manufacturing. Yeah, we might get our hair a bit mussed with the hundreds of thousands of deaths, but net-net it’s a win!”
Realistically, it is for the best if countries are resilient to US failure. It will make Americans generationally poorer, but the world will be better off for it.
The world will become more resilient, but this could easily be a lose-lose for USA and other democratic nations.
Is that why Ukraine agreed to the Budapest Memorandum?
If Trump and the rest of his podcasting/influencer buffoon class, can rise to power in the US riding on what is valued by Attention Economics, then the same can repeat in every country in the world.
The root cause is not changing cause the Algos have created a game that favor those who love Attention and will do whatever it takes to get it and keep it.
> No new tariffs were announced for Canada. Canada and Mexico’s exemption for USMCA/CUSMA qualifying goods was maintained. However, 25% tariffs on non-USMCA compliant Canadian goods, Canadian steel and aluminum, Canadian autos and parts, and the 10% tariff on Canadian energy exports remain in place.. there are signs that negotiators on both sides are trying to steer Canada-US trade to a more productive process of an expedited renegotiation of the Canada-US-Mexico Trade Agreement (CUSMA).
More context on US trade policy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43589350
If you run that formula for Canada and Mexico, the number would be LOWER than the tariffs already imposed.
So they had to leave Canada and Mexico off to keep things looking consistent.
You can confirm here from USTR stats: https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada#:~:text=C...
> both leaders claim their approaches have helped them this week avoid what Trump calls “liberation day” tariffs.. Mexican officials on Thursday said the strategy had borne fruit and they would focus on getting an even better deal. Economy minister Marcelo Ebrard said: “It's a great achievement, I’d say, from the point of view of where we started not long ago that there would be no exemptions.” .. Mexico remains upbeat, with [President] Sheinbaum on Thursday trying to lure companies to invest in USMCA-compliant production in the country. “We think that with the dialogue we’ve established there are the conditions to have a better deal,” she said.
Do you dispute this? It's trivial to calculate.
Canada and Mexico share a physical border with USA, which has already resulted in unique (i.e. unrelated to the math of 180+ other countries which don't physically border USA) tariffs tailored to border security goals, under national security emergency directives which overrode USMCA.
USMCA has been historically gamed by international manufacturers seeking more favorable terms for products destined to the US market. As stated by the leadership of both Mexico and Canada, USMCA will need to be renegotiated to address issues identified by all three parties, which would then reduce the need to invoke the emergency-power tariffs that have been deployed against 180+ countries.
On the canada side, i think the issue identified that needs to be addressed is the US president being a dick.
(I'm not being sarcastic here, that is my genuine impression. If you disagree can you cite a source for what issues canada wants addressed? Obviously times are a bit weird since we are having an election and its considered bad form for the gov to do anything during election season)
> Some Members of Parliament have also advocated for increasing trade barriers on Chinese imports alongside the United States, which the Canadian government has recently begun doing unilaterally. Suggesting Canada could be interested in coordinating those China-related trade policy measures across all three USMCA members, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland recently said she sympathizes with US concerns that “Mexico is not acting the way that Canada and the US are when it comes to its economic relationship with China.”
Compared to now where our current PM is straight up saying "The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperations, is over"
> A broader change to the USMCA also looks likely, with Carney saying there had been “so many violations” that the free trade agreement needs “a renegotiation”.
It's more likely that USMCA violations referenced by Carney and Freeland were done by Mexico/China, at the economic expense of both Canada and USA.
In context it seems very unlikely this is about mexico, as carney is running on a platform of closer integration with mexico and strongly distancing canada ecconomically from the united states. Carney's ecconomic policies are not identical to the previous administration - it makes about as much sense to refer to trudeau/freeland's statements as it would to try and explain trump's policies by referencing things biden said/did.
Even the emergency border security tariffs and counter-tariffs announced earlier this year by US and Canada have since been carefully tailored for specific products and exceptions, as cooler heads prevailed on both sides of the border, to minimize immediate and catastrophic ripple effects across North American manufacturing.
If it was real math, it wouldn’t assume that there is some magical trade elasticity that is completely linear in the tariff rate. And real math might notice that the prices of goods that are subject to tariffs are an utterly absurd measure of value, cost, movement of money, or anything else.
Consider:
A US company does a bunch of R&D and designs a widget. They pay $10 each to a Chinese factory to manufacture it. They warehouse the widgets in Hong Kong. Each widget purchased by a US customer results in a “$100” item being imported. $90 stays in the US. $10 goes to China.
The same company does exactly the same thing except they ship in bulk to a US warehouse. The imported item is now “$10”. The tariff is 1/10 as much, the napkin math sees 1/10 as much trade imbalance, but the economic effect of the import is identical.
Or maybe they ship from Hong Kong to a French customer. This should be seen as an export from the US to France with $90 and an export from China to France worth $10. But I think it’s invisible to the napkin math.
Now consider that the US is home to some wildly successful companies with names like AMD and Nvidia. They sell chips for thousands of dollars each, worldwide. They pay TSMC quite a lot less to make them. If they warehouse in the US, they may be screwed now! If they ship from Taiwan to a buyer somewhere else, the US has, in effect, exported quite close to the full sale price of that chip, but no trade goods ever touched US soil. Can the napkin math sees that?
You can bet that several other countries use brains instead of napkins and will have no difficulty thinking that they could retaliate by restricting or taxing of these US-designed goods even if they’re imported from elsewhere. And China is working very hard to make their own alternatives, and they will surely be willing to export them.
(Don’t forget: The UK and Israel have CPU design expertise. ASML is dependent on tin zapping tech from San Diego, but they’re an EU company. And it looks like the successor to that tin zapping tech might be free electron lasers, and that technology come from US national labs and universities, but other countries also have FELs, and the nerdy physicists who fiddle with them are not happy with the US government right now.)
See the 2024 paper (40 pages) by Stephen Miran, current chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, which has influenced tariff policy, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43589350
https://financialpost.com/news/stephen-miran-economist-trump...
> Miran.. points to Trump’s application of tariffs on China in 2018-2019, which he argues “passed with little discernible macroeconomic consequence.” He adds that during that time the U.S. dollar rose to offset the macroeconomic impact of the tariffs and resulted in significant revenue for the U.S. Treasury.. “The effective tariff rate on Chinese imports increased by 17.9 percentage points from the start of the trade war in 2018 to the maximum tariff rate in 2019,” the report said. “As the financial markets digested the news, the Chinese renminbi depreciated against the dollar over this period by 13.7 per cent, so that the after-tariff USD import price rose by 4.1 per cent.”
(c) Should any trading partner take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters, I may further modify the HTSUS to decrease or limit in scope the duties imposed under this order.
Lobbyists and trade negotiators can read 700 words of strawman "napkin math", or 40 pages by CEA chair, or interviews with administration officials, to inform their negotiating position.Having spent a whopping ten minutes finding official data (and I have no idea how good this data is as a whole — probably mediocre but far better than whatever nonsense the USTR is doing):
(a) The EU seems to thing that they run a trade surplus with us in goods and a deficit in services, and they’re close to balancing out.
(b) The US’s own data shows a net surplus with some countries and a net deficit with others. See here, page 28:
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_p...
If the US was trying to negotiate sensibly and to identify anything remotely non-reciprocal, they would be rewarding the countries with positive numbers in that table! The US should be delighted to trade with Australia, Brazil, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc! By all means, we should buy more widgets and sell more fancy services!
As a silly analogy: if your housemate goes on a wild drunken rampage and starts trashing everything in sight while screaming “you need to reciprocate and wash the dishes more often and I will continue trashing things until you wash the dishes reciprocally,” the situation is not a viable negotiation tactic.
EU / China trade pacts, China / California, Mexico / EU. People have to patch around the mistaken over-reliance on sanity from the US. It’ll happen, not sure if it’ll take a few weeks or a few years though.
Cutting off countries like Japan or Taiwan like that when we know their geopolitical situation with China and how critical their economy is to the US is quite crazy.
It's starting to look like U.S. agreements aren't really with the country, but with whoever happens to be in office. US allies is isolating itself and it's allies are going to hedge. The trend is already starting and it's going to be hard to reverse. Restoring that trust isn’t just a matter of electing the "right" leadership, either, at this juncture, I think that it would require institutional reforms and a consensus on foreign policy that transcends the electoral cycle.
I'm not going to cheer for the "downfall of US", but America is doing it to itself.
Err.. do tell about the UK's larger crisis than US'?
I don't know how things panned out, but the discussions in the early days around Brexit were absolutely on par or even worse than what we're seeing in these two days of discussions around tariffs.
Regardless of contemporaneous comparisons, the up-thread comment I initially replied to suggested there was some ongoing worse 'crisis' in the UK than the current situation in the US, if they meant to refer to Brexit it was not clear at all, regardless of whether anyone things that's an ongoing worse situation. (Except that the fact it's not clear really suggests it isn't...)
'Pretty young' would imply maybe you haven't been voting for very long, and are likely under 25.
An under 25 year old today wouldn't have been able to have voted on the 2016 referendum anyway.
The UK voted for Brexit in 2016, but it was up to the UK itself to invoke it with the EU. They took almost 4 years to do it in January of 2020 after 4 years of arguing about it with a transition period and trade talks with the EU until the end of 2020. It wasn't a surprise and "no one knew how imports worked". Yeah people online made all sort of wild hyperbolic scenarios, but trade was unaffected until the end of 2020. There were shortages in the UK around that time, but I wonder if you remember what happened shortly after January 31st of 2020?
The prescription drug shortages is still a problem in the UK. It's not because no one still knows how imports work in the UK, 5 years after Brexit. It's because the overall imports and exports in the UK has been falling since Brexit. Because the UK economy hasn't been doing great. Brexit, COVID, and then Ukraine/Russian energy dependency came in a pretty bad time for the UK.
Oh, longer than that. Some transition arrangements are _still in practice in place_, for instance see https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-brexit-border-checks-dela... . Brexit is not done, yet; things will get worse before they get better.
Right now we're seeing the 0th order effects.
While estimates of the damage done by Brexit are of course very politically sensitive, nearly everyone agrees that some substantial damage has been done, particularly to trade and jobs (one estimate has the UK with _over 2 million_ fewer jobs today than it would otherwise have, Goldman Sachs says that the UK economy is 5% smaller than it ‘should’ be, etc etc)
GDP isn't everything and from the outside the UK feel like in a very bad place, but I wonder what's the metric that really captures that status. Inequalities aren't getting that much wider as well.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/gbr/uni...
Leaving the EU had no effect on the British economy. Not positive, not negative. Even the trade balance with the EU merely continued along its long term trend, so apparently the single market wasn't delivering any value in the end. The closest thing you can find to an economic impact was the currency dump that happened the moment the result was called, but the economy did fine in the post-referendum years and so those traders who panicked just took a bath and the currency recovered later. Not that a currency devaluation is such a bad thing for the UK anyway, its exports could use the help.
Even some non-economic impacts failed to materialize, in both directions. The UK rejoined the Horizon research programme (supposedly a "cherry" that would be lost), but also the reduction in immigration that voters were promised didn't happen either, in fact immigration went into overdrive.
A lot of people who support the EU don't realize any of this, partly because the news doesn't report on things that don't happen so they never hear about it. But mostly it's because they conflate predictions with reality. For example, there's someone saying in this thread that "the narrative was pretty catastrophic" followed by "I don't know how things panned out". And when I pointed out this lack of impact less than two weeks ago here, I got a reply that cited another pile of predictions as a refutation:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43469356
It's a systemic problem that crops up in other areas too. During COVID modeling predictions were regularly repeated as if they'd already happened, and you see the same mental slippage in climate change discourse. The line between "we think this might happen", "this will happen" and "this has already happened" blurs to nothing.
As a non-EU / non-UK reader I went searching for more detailed analysis after reading your post. The first detailed analysis I found was the UK Office for Budget Responsibility's Brexit Analysis. [1]
The OBR's analysis suggests outcomes like the following (all quoted from that assessment) that seem to suggest some degree of negative economic impact:
* The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU.
* Both exports and imports will be around 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU.
[1] https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexi...
That link is neither analysis nor reporting on outcomes. That's more predictions. This is the exact problem I'm talking about!
To analyze outcomes you must look at the actual data. There's a report that does so here but you can look up the raw data too if you prefer:
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Perspectives_5...
From the summary:
"Contrary to initial concerns, Brexit has not had a major detrimental effect on UK–EU trade.
● Trade data doesn’t support the Office for Budget Responsibility’s claims that Brexit has caused significant negative impacts on the UK economy.
● Data from 2019 to 2022 indicates that the trade in both goods and services between the UK and EU hasn’t shown a discernible Brexit effect."
You can look up more recent numbers but the story hasn't changed.
I'd really like to understand the psychology of this phenomenon better. I don't mean this as any personal criticism because it's good that you're asking, but the fact that every time I bring this prediction/reality conflation up I get a rebuttal with more predictions in it is fascinating.
● The analysis you link to is exactly the same sort of analysis the OBR provides -- i.e. a synthesis of current and past data and updated projections of what that means looking ahead
● The OBR report links to detailed "Economic and fiscal outlook" (EFO) data that includes the actual data the conclusions are based on. I haven't tried to look at the linked data for many of the analyses in the OBR report, but for those I have I find data in the cited EFO documents that seems to backup the statements made. For example, Box 2.6 of the March 2022 EFO report: https://obr.uk/box/the-latest-evidence-on-the-impact-of-brex...
● I gather that the "Institute of Economic Affairs" (IEA) is a long running right wing think-tank/advocacy group -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs
● The director of the IEA was apparently recorded by an undercover reporter telling funders that his organization was in "the Brexit influencing game" [1]. Why should I thus trust that the IEA isn't trying to spin Brexit outcomes to their funders advantage? This applies to the government too of course, but many of those OBR/EFO reports seem to have been prepared when the Conservatives were in power.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/29/rightwing-t...
That the IEA is right wing is neither here nor there, because the statements it makes are factual and true. If for some reason you suspect foul play you can just look up the data yourself instead of digging up irrelevant quotes (the Guardian is also very much in the Brexit influencing game, so what?)
I'll do the work for you. Here's a report from Parliament with the relevant data up to 2023. See the graph in section 3.1
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-...
That's trade. For other economics indicators there are many sources. I like TradingEconomics.com
Since you were so kind as to "do the work" for me, I'll also "do the work" for you (LOL!):
● From the text and tables in 3.1 (text from the report included below) I take it we both come to the same conclusion that post-Brexit the EU has lost ~£40 billion in export trade?
● To be clear how I'm getting that number -- NET LOSS in Exports for 2023 vs values cited for period 2017-2019: ~£20 billion to EU + ~£20 billion non EU
Is £40 billion a little or a lot? From the text below that seems to be about a 10% hit on exports.
How much is attributable to Brexit vs other factors (e.g. impact of COVID) really is the domain of forecasting and analysis, which you seem uncomfortable with. So perhaps we'll leave it there. EDIT: For readers who are interested in the performance of forecasting models, the OBR includes an analysis of the performance of their models here: https://obr.uk/box/how-are-our-brexit-trade-forecast-assumpt...
--
From the Parliamentary report "Statistics on UK trade with the EU":
> UK goods exports to the EU have not recovered to pre-Brexit levels. Goods exports to the EU exceeded £170 billion in 2017, 2018 and 2019 but have not done so in any calendar year since and were £153 billion in 2023 (see table below).
> It is worth noting that UK exports of goods to the EU were growing quite slowly before Brexit and the pandemic, being only 9% higher in 2019 than 2010 in real terms
> Goods exports to non-EU countries also remain below pre-Brexit levels. These exceeded £180 billion in 2017, 2018 and 2019 but have been below £170 billion in every calendar year since then. They were £162 billion in 2023.
--
EDITS: added some clarification re: source of export values; wording of text.
But to your last comment, post-Brexit the UK is pretty significantly under-performing the rest of the G7 in terms of goods trades (prior to Brexit the UK seemed to mirror the G7 average).
https://obr.uk/box/how-are-our-brexit-trade-forecast-assumpt...
Interestingly, in terms of Services trade the UK seems to be slightly over-performing.
If you want to know more about the current situation in the UK I would recommend this video [1]. His channel is amazing for geopolitical content.
- The UK has one of the worst homelessness problems in Europe, with about 1 in 50 Londoners experiencing homelessness.
- The UK economy stagnated for 10 years following 2008, resulting in a "lost decade"
- The median disposable income in the UK was slightly lower than the US and Norway before the GFC by 6-8%, not it's 16-20% behind.
IDK if I'd call this a crisis, i.e. people aren't rioting in the streets. That said, this is not the direction you want to be moving in as a developed country. The trend of people in formerly dominant countries electing leaders who keep making stupid own goals (increasing economic inequality, Brexit, gutting the NHS, gutting US foreign aid, tariff-pocalypse) is very worrying.
US population is around 340 000 000, 770 000 homeless.
UK population is around 68 000 000, 354 000 homeless. (Possibly calculated more inclusively.)
That's 0.23 % and 0.52 %.
(Numbers from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Kin... or more specifically from a govt department and a homelessness charity. The US figure "does not include those staying with friends or family because they do not have a place of their own".)
But also, uh, you're wrong too! Your numerator for the UK figure is actually an estimate for homeless people in England, while your denominator includes the whole UK.
I do, but the principal reason I didn't say that is that I had no idea it's what the commenter I replied to was referring to.
'Brexit' feels mostly completely irrelevant / not a topic of concern or debate since at least the beginning of the pandemic five years ago. The vote was almost a decade ago. 'If bdelmas thinks it's like Brexit, they could just say that', to paraphrase your own comment.
The USA hasn't done any of that, so the situation at this stage isn't the same.
Weeks after Brexit happened, when Covid started, EU governments quickly moved their focus to the pandemic. Since then, they've continued to tell Britain they aren't interested in reopening discussions so soon after new treaties were signed.
That's changed slightly with Russia/Ukraine/Trump, as the UK has positioned itself carefully between the USA and the rest of NATO.
All that time though, it remains a topic of debate in Britain since they haven't seen any of the promised benefits of Brexit. Some things have got worse, but I'd say it's generally a problem of stagnation, compared to improvements in comparable neighbouring countries.
I think if I were American I would be longing for the day that <insert Trump thing> 'remains a topic of debate because we haven't seen the promised benefit of it'!
That is not really relevant anyway, the up-thread suggestion was that there was some current ongoing crisis more significant than anything happening in the US. That user didn't even mention Brexit, but if that is what they meant, no, I assure you it's predominantly Trump and tax year end stuff in our news.
How is this related to brexit? Well, it's mentioned several times in that page, but here: > Brexit has permanently diminished trade efficiency in the UK...weakening the UK’s international competitiveness.....intensified the UK’s longstanding productivity issues...imposed lasting structural constraints on productivity ...Brexit’s negative impact on productivity is enduring and structural. Additionally, Brexit has produced effects akin to a negative supply-side shock...An analysis conducted by NIESR colleagues, published in November 2023, suggested that UK business investment could have been about 12.4 per cent higher in 2023 if Brexit did not happen.
https://niesr.ac.uk/blog/five-years-economic-impact-brexit
Funnily enough, one thing that gets called out a lot is the rising wealth inequality that allows the shrinking group of well-off types to be completely ignorant of the worsening conditions at the bottom. You must be doing ok for yourself - but I am genuinely curious what kind of news sources you follow that you are not aware of the very serious levels of poverty and fear rising around the country, and the economic troubles underlying them.
If there are any crises in my UK news, they're in the Ukraine, Israel, USA, and perhaps Greenland & Canada by extension. To the extent there's crisis in the UK that I'm aware of, it's the same USA-inflicted event that the rest of the world's dealing with too.
Even if Trump fell out of a window today and we got a pro-trade president tomorrow, we’re not fixing this damage for a very long time.
We probably would have to amend the constitution to insulate foreign policy from the whims of a single person if we want any chance of fixing this in our lifetime.
Additionally your senate just signed law to repeal the tariffs against Canada specifically so I don't know what other receipts or paperwork you'd like here. Not that I expect Trump to adhere to that of course, but I've never heard the perspective of "well these weren't signed agreements" for things that clearly were.
That bill won't pass the crazy house, but yes, CUSMA was signed law.
Military alliance stuff might be harder. Some stuff like NATO is supported by actual legislation, but other stuff was set up as a kind of gentleman's agreement with the US President-du-jour on the assumption that successors wouldn't be crazy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom...
Only with a veto-proof majority in both chambers.
As are felony convictions, top secret docs in a bathroom at your house, sexual assault settlements, and the hundred other career-ending scandals the guy has survived without a scratch so far.
There is no congress any more, not as an independent body. There is Trump, and there is a body of people who will, in the majority, do anything Trump wants them to do, and is not independent in any way.
trump doesnt need anything from congress, and probably wouldnt change tariff policy even after said law is passed in a veto-proof way
Originally it wasn't veto-able (only needed a Concurrent Resolution of 50% in each house, no Presidential signature) but the Supreme Court ruled that part unconstitutional in the early 80s.
The debt was never recoverable
Ironically, Trump has the record for the highest deficit ever in US history. He's on track to beat it though and with a reasonably strong economy when he took office (again, not an ideal economy, underemployment is a major issue, but not a weak economy by any stretch).
hardly relevant comment since all presidents left and right have been pushing the button to increase deficits (and congress is completely responsible as well for not trying to balance the budget) so this is a systemic problem that will bring the downfall of America no matter what. It's just a matter of time, and with that level of debt, the time bomb keeps ticking faster and faster.
If you don't take his threats seriously by now, and the willingness of the GOP to get behind whatever he wants, then you are not paying attention - it has happened over, and over, and over.
He never directly spoke against a third term, just “violating the constitution”, and then named some enemies. It’s a long way off still, but you can see the groundwork being laid for something like “emergency measures to protect the constitution” if they decide that’s the way they want to go.
Really, it's just an "if enough people in power and in general go along with it, then it works" kind of thing. The current trend in the GOP is to whip and/or expel those who do not fully support Trump. What happens if half of the elected politicians, most of their constituents, and most of the appointed government officials, decide that Trump is staying in office? No one knows. The power of words on paper only goes as far as people let it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...
Any examples?
There's a good chance he doesn't even live to the end of this term, forget running for president again at 82...
He hasn't disclosed his medical records, which is something presidents are normally expected to do. You have to wonder why he disclosed his records in 2016 and not in 2024
> There isn't a high chance that he's going to die of natural causes in the next 4 years
Of course there is, he is Seventy Eight and Visibly Obese
His parents living longer is not a strong predictor
I don't feel that's a given. But even if they do, it needs to be enforced which feels much less likely.
Trump believes that the he/the US has the more powerful position in all of these relationships and wants to impose his will on the rest of the world and make them submit to his/US superiority. Which might actually work if he picked one target at a time. But you can't beat up the whole school at once. The fact that he can't do this to everyone at once, combined with his utter misunderstanding of what trade imbalance actually means, will lead to an outcome that is bad for everyone, but worse for the U.S. than most.
There are two other theories that I think have some shred of credibility, and they're both worse:
1. Trump intends to use his apparent ability to unilaterally impose or negate these taxes at will on a granular level to force countries, companies, and individuals to come groveling to him for favors, allowing him to use the presidency to further enrich and entrench himself.
2. Trump is divesting of dependence on allies because he thinks they might soon be adversaries. That's the most harrowing potential interpretation, but it relies on the notion that he has any kind of foresight. This is really only credible if you genuinely believe that it's Putin pulling his strings. Which is a possibility that's hard to dismiss.
But it’s essentially impossible to negotiate 180 deals simultaneously. No way does Tunisia get even five minutes to pitch a deal - the simultaneous imposition of tariffs effectively DDOS’d the negotiation team.
Also, the future of warfare and terrorism is autonomous networks of drones. Mexico and Canada won't be disposed to care what passes through their borders with the USA, and like Zelensky said ... we had the oceans and friendly neighbors, but that won't help us anymore.
EDIT: minor corrections
Trump just locked the US, kinda did the finger to the earth, and hopes people will come begging for trade.
Has it? To who?
Canada hasn't, and won't, negotiate a single thing. We increased border patrols for a made up problem and thus far it has entirely served to catch guns and drugs and illegals coming from the United States.
The United States has lost tens to hundreds of billions of sales to Canada. They are never, ever coming back.
Trump sabotaged a critical trading relationship in a way that Americans just cannot comprehend, through his laughably stupid "bullying".
Similarly, supposedly Vietnam has come "hat in hand". Vietnam has literally nothing to offer. It has negligible tariffs or blocks on US trade, it just happens to be a poor country. The bullying is utter stupidity.
Mexico thus far has taken being pissed in the face because they're 100% of Trump's purported problem -- from drugs, to migrants to cartels to funnelling Chinese goods, and the likelihood is that Mexico ends up being the biggest beneficiary.
It’s a culture thing.
Of course they won’t do that. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Some of the senators are breaking away though.
If the country survives this though the next thing through executive order could be just as bad or worse. There doesn't seem to be any realistic way out of this insanity.
Could the President remain in office after an impeachment? Ask again in 2-3 years, but today, no. He'd be removed, no federal employee (civilian or military) would continue to take orders from him except perhaps his Cabinet and the DOGE boys. They all swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the man. In 2-3 years, though, could be a different culture.
Anyone who imports and is assessed a tariff would have personal standing to sue, arguing that the tax is illegal. I think there are some procedural requirements first to e.g. formally complain, but the dispute would eventually get its day in court.
However, these tariffs are being applied at least under a thin veneer of law regarding declared emergencies. It's clearly beyond the intent of the law for Trump to do this, but it's hard to draw a bright line between this and (e.g.) ambitious environmental regulation.
> Even on death’s doorstep, Trevor was not angry. In fact, he staunchly supported the stance promoted by his elected officials. “Ain’t no way I would ever support Obamacare or sign up for it,” he told me. “I would rather die.” When I asked him why he felt this way even as he faced severe illness, he explained: “We don’t need any more government in our lives. And in any case, no way I want my tax dollars paying for Mexicans or welfare queens.”
> At the most basic level, Trevor died of the toxic effects of liver damage caused by hepatitis C. Yet Trevor’s deteriorating condition resulted also from the toxic effects of dogma. Dogma that told him that governmental assistance in any form was evil and not to be trusted, even when the assistance came in the form of federal contracts with private health insurance or pharmaceutical companies, or from expanded communal safety nets. Dogma that, as he made abundantly clear, aligned with beliefs about a racial hierarchy that overtly and implicitly aimed to keep white Americans hovering above Mexicans, welfare queens, and nonwhite others. Dogma suggesting to Trevor that minority groups received lavish benefits from the state, even though he himself lived and died on a low-income budget with state assistance. Trevor voiced a literal willingness to die for his place in this hierarchy, rather than participate in a system that might put him on the same plane as immigrants or racial minorities.
If anyone thinks a claim that Musk is a literal white supremacist is biased, remember that he did two Nazi salutes at the president's inauguration and endorsed Germany's AfD party.
I used to enjoy HN but it seems to have developed into these sorts of comments quite quickly.
The majority of the American people who voted for the current regime are being taken advantage of but like many they'll progressively more and more identify with wanting whatever outcome "their" team achieves.
Sparking the local industries needs to happen with incentives, not a tsunami.
You can't swap the supply chain to a local-first instantly. Many things aren't done locally. The factory buildings are gone. The labor isn't there or trained. The basic materials aren't local and need to be imported. The machines needed to produce the parts don't exist locally and need to be imported themselves; sending margins to unrealistic numbers and making it a non-starter environment.
What it is, is another flip of the table, an upset, to cause chaos and feed a positive environment for more chaos, which only suits those who benefit from chaos.
They will need a shoulder to cry on when they re-discover how well a trade war works out. The last ones seem to have happened at roughly 50 year intervals.
The US seems to be incapable of learning from the past. The worrying thing is that Mr Trump is old enough to remember directly or what his parents told him about the last fucked up trade shit storm or trade war.
You do not get to dictate how the world as a whole works ... ever. It has its own ideas about that.
Even Britain at its most imperious could not do that and the US can't even stop itself from trying to impose tariffs on its own air base in .io!
The best we can do from outside is to hope that the US does not collapse completely and that the downward trend stops at some point. If, somehow this all pans out that we will all benefit or even that just the US benefits then fine. Let's pick up the pieces and crack on.
I do not hate Americans nor their rather odd President. We are seeing change happening. It might be for the good eventually but I doubt it but I'm not an expert. In the meantime I suggest we continue to act as friends towards an old friend. When you go barking mad, you might need your mates to stand beside you whilst you dribble and widdle.
It is crazy and it does have some crazy logic. The US trade deficit is well pronounced only on material goods. If you add services, the deficit is much less, if any. The services are produced by the people and states mostly voting Democratic. So, Trump with his tariffs may succeed in causing the EU and others to retaliate against US services, thus damaging blue states and helping (well in his mind) the red states. Trump already did similar hit against blue states with SALT deduction for example, yet it was just a small preview.
No one worth listening to.
You mean idiots of course.
There is some regular 2D chess going on here, but it's not being played by anyone in the US admin. Putin wants to weaken NATO so he can continue expanding. America is a linchpin holding together much of the European alliances and not coincidentally the candidate he helped get elected twice is destroying the US's global standing and weakening the US dollar.
The rebuilding going on in Europe, the increase in European military spending, and the talk about nuclear weapons in Europe is a direct consequence. I don't know if Putin just expected Europe to run around incompetently like the Keystone Cops, but it kind of feels like they're acting quickly and competently without the US.
At any rate, all of this is bringing us much closer to a WWI or WWII style global military conflict.
He is tanking the US economy so he and his billionaire cohort can buy things (businesses, real estate, stocks, etc) at a low price. Thus amassing more control and capital.
This is how the Russian oligarchy came into power.
That in itself is not a bad goal, and it's one I agree with; neoliberalism has increased inequality, put excessive wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, and looted nations of their infrastructure and social structures. Neoliberalism should die.
The problem is that Trump's economic advisors seem to want a new world order where the rest of the world is even more subservient to the US, and they think they can enforce that by cutting everybody off from the US economy, and they'll only be let back if they accept America's new terms.
The problem is of course that the US actually cut itself off from the rest of the world, and as big and powerful as the US is, it's not more powerful than the rest of the world put together. It's not the rest of the world that will come crawling back; it's the US. After having squandered its 80 year dominant position in the global economy.
These countries can establish as many new trade agreements as they want, but they aren’t going to replace the US market.
And to claim that the US has lost allies is ridiculous. Countries have done far worse and remained allies.
Let’s not overplay the impact here. Free trade is a relatively new thing. We’re just going back to the world the way it was a few decades ago.
The problem is the USA is a consumer economy which isn’t sustainable. We could get away with it as a tech leader, but with China stepping ahead (Deepseek) china will be a tech leader and manufacturing leader. What will the USA have?
China is what now? China is the biggest trading partner of something like 70% of all nations in the world!
China is asymmetric and unfair, not "isolated". They disallow imports except in a handful of industries they can't replicate yet. That works for China, because: (1) they are huge, and (2) they remain poor, and thus can do the low wage jobs internally in addition to doing them for the rest of the world.
The US only has advantage #1. Though at this point #2 seems within reach...