It might be less beneficial than the previous position, but nonetheless more beneficial than the alternative.
If the deal was the best available then its not "selling out", its being realistic.
If the deal was the best available then its not "selling out", its being realistic.
I could offer a real life anecdote, but I am not certain where you are going with this conversation.
Trump is "making deals" by making the other option worse. But the problem is, if you take the current best option, that may not be the deal for long. He may do it again... and again...
"I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it further."
When dealing with someone like this, don't play the game the first time.
It’s better than pretending for decades and then getting wiped out.
This was always going to happen eventually.
I'm glad the American people at least know how weak the EU is, we should elect someone next time that will bring those tariffs up to 100%, and the EU will have to take it because it's better than a 200% tariff alternative. That's just being realistic, right?
Trump tends to present trade as a zero sum game, but it very much isn’t; outside of limited scenarios (generally developing countries protecting otherwise unviable local industry with targeted tariffs), tariffs generally hurt both sides.
The real thinking is that being a net importer gives you more negotiating power so you can use that to get a better deal.
its well worth looking at what people like Miran and Bessent said (before they were in government) to see what is driving all this.
That sounds more like China backed down than the US did.
The EU is a lot weaker than China. China dominates critical areas of manufacturing, and does not have the level of dependence Europe (non-EU as well) has on the US - I hardly need remind people here of the dependence in IT systems.