this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
110 points (95.1% liked)

News

24403 readers
5391 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
110
Trump Tariffs Threaten to Upend Global Economic Order (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 days ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Paywall? https://archive.is/PrBun

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 45 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They warned that the tariffs, which were levied in response to Mr. Trump’s concerns about fentanyl smuggling and illegal immigration,

I hate how much I am seeing this stated as fact, without the essential context.

Trump is using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enforce tariffs without going through congress, because he knows he doesn't have the votes for this nonsense.

It's not about fent and immigrants. He just needs to say that it is so that he can justify these being "emergency" measures. It's about his weird, unfounded obsession with trade imbalances and his naive assumption that a negative trade balance represents some kind of problem.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I don't know if he's actually upset about that or playing to the crowd's beliefs -- the 2024 Republican voting public generally feels that international trade is disadvantageous to the US, and he's done a lot to play to the views of supporters. Problem is that Trump is pretty regularly untruthful on a big-lie level, so sorting out what he's saying because he thinks it's politically-useful and what he actually believes does take some doing.

I commented on this yesterday:

https://lemmy.today/post/23134018/13920142

In short:

In general, Republicans, older people, the poor, white, and the less-educated believe that international trade is disadvantageous to the US.

So if you figure that Trump’s base is Republican, older, poorer, whiter, and less-educated, they probably are going to be in favor of anything that looks like a reduction in international trade.

So tariffs and less trade may play well with that crowd. If they think that Trump is reducing trade, he will score political points with them.

that a negative trade balance represents some kind of problem.

Even if it did, you're just talking bilateral trade balances, not overall. Like, even if you thought that you needed to intervene to maintain the overall balance of trade, you'd expect to run surpluses with some trade partners and deficits with others.

If you asked me, my guess is that Trump is most-likely just fine with international trade. He has multinational companies. He did a great deal during his first term to give the impression that he was reducing international trade ("tear up NAFTA!") while not actually doing a lot (slightly revise NAFTA to give a little more preference to US auto parts manufacturers and a few other tweaks, rename it, announce that he'd solved our terrible, horrible trade issues). There are going to be people who do have an economics background in the loop, and Trump's degree -- long time ago though that may be -- even is in economics.

A depressingly large amount of of gaining support in politics is just saying things that the people you want to support you agree with.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Everything you're arguing here is completely plausible, but I think your read on the final state of the revised NAFTA undersells the work of a lot of skilled negotiators from Canada and Mexico.

Trump has historically (as in, pre-politics) demonstrated a clear and consistent belief that all trades are zero sum. Either you're winning, or they are. It's always important to remember that Trump is, himself, a fairly typical low information right wing voter in his mentality. He's exactly the sort of person who would be susceptible to the kind of misinformation you're describing.

But you may be right, it may all just be theatre for the base. Either way, it sure as hell isn't about the 20kg of fent siezed at the Canadian border last year.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Everything you're arguing here is completely plausible, but I think your read on the final state of the revised NAFTA undersells the work of a lot of skilled negotiators from Canada and Mexico.

Thing is, when I went into Trump Term 1, I've seen similar shennanigans from Republican politicians before. Like, Ron Paul -- retired now -- is right-libertarian, a pretty hard advocate for laissez-faire free trade. I once listened to a recording of a speech he gave in Texas, where he's got a constituency that doesn't like NAFTA much. He spent most of the speech railing on NAFTA (without much by way of specifics) to lots of cheering, which came as quite a surprise to me at the time. His justification was brief and a lot quieter -- that NAFTA wasn't "real free trade" because it wasn't free enough.

The thing is, the anti-NAFTA movement is really from people who wanted protectionist trade policy. But most people who echo that don't really have a great handle on the specifics. They just get a high level "NAFTA == bad".

That is, he was advocating for the opposite of the policy that probably a lot of constituenents wanted, but doing so in such a way as to leave them with the impression that he was doing what they wanted.

So if you're a politician who wants to run free trade policy representing people who have been sold on protectionist trade policy, that was definitely an existing route.

Trump's anti-NAFTA speeches had the same sort of structure. Long, emotional, norm-violating and concrete-detail-free chunks about getting rid of NAFTA and how bad NAFTA was, then a shorter bit "or throw it out and replace it with a new deal that's good for America".

When Trump proposed eliminating NAFTA in Term 1, I went and dug up his whitepaper. Same sort of idea. All-caps stuff up front that was very vague and gave the impression that NAFTA was almost-certainly going to go away, but with no specifics. The actual details further in were a lot more boring.

Trump goes a lot farther than Paul or most of our politicians -- like, Trump doesn't restrain himself to maybe misleading statements, outright makes major, self-contradictory statements. Trump is willing to not just say something misleading, but outright lie to a degree that I think that we're not used to with US Presidents.

But I don't think that he's actually doing something new here. This is already in the playbook. He's just willing to lie to an unprecedented degree.

A lot of Republican voters are unhappy about illegal immigration. If you recall, the centerpiece of his Term 1 campaign was "The Wall". He made all kinds of outrageous statements. What a lot of people focused on was his willingness to break norms. The impression he gave to a listener was that there would be a huge wall built spanning the US-Mexico border. There was tremendous noise generated about it when he was in office, lots of talk about funds and so forth...and then nothing happened.

What I think a number of people forget -- or for younger folks, don't know -- is that Bush Jr did virtually the same thing, twenty years ago. In Bush's case, it wasn't as prominent, and the term used was "fence" instead of "wall". The impression it gave was again that the border would be spanned fully.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006.

That actually did result in some amount of fencing being constructed around official border checkpoints.

How about Trump's wall?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border_wall

On June 23, Trump visited Yuma, Arizona, for a campaign rally commemorating the completion of 200 miles (320 km) of the wall.[74] U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed that almost all of this was replacement fencing.[75] By the end of Trump's term on January 21, 2021, 452 miles (727 km) had been built at last report by CBP on January 5, much of it replacing outdated or dilapidated existing barriers.[76]

Needless to say, this isn't the wall spanning the border that one would walk away from with the impression of Trump building after having listened to his speeches. It's not nothing, but it's mostly maintenance on existing fencing.

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You know what they say when you are at the top of a global order and reap substantial benefits from having that coveted position?

Blow it all up and hope that it’ll come out better by having you… at the top… which is where you already were… hold on.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago

It's not about having, it's about gaining. He constantly needs to feed his ego by getting ahead, even if it's by tearing everyone else down.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

Which is probably the point. One should view donvict as a foreign actor just doing things to benefit anyone BUT the United States.

[–] Foni@lemm.ee 25 points 2 days ago

The new global economic order: "The USA is not a reliable partner. Even if these tariffs are overturned by Congress or anyone else in a short time, the US government wants to impose them. They are not someone to make deals or do business with. Let's distance them from our economy as much as possible."

Great job orange man

[–] riskable@programming.dev 6 points 1 day ago

If other countries want to get serious about fighting back they need to announce they're dropping out of the Berne Convention.

That treaty benefits the US more than anyone else and especially not small countries. The only reason why small countries signed on to it in the first place is because of things like USAID and avoiding tariffs!

If the US is ending USAID and putting tariffs on fucking everything then why TF would these countries continue to protect US copyrights basically forever.

I was surprised as heck that Columbia bent over and didn't just announce that they're dropping out and will start hosting the biggest "pirate" website ever where they only honor the first 15 years of copyright.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well the excitement never ends and this thread is obsolete. Looks like at least some of these tariffs are already on hold. Apparently once someone actually talks to these countries, they can use their words to ask what they actually wanted.

It may be retro-logic after inciting panic throughout the economy and everyone we used to be friends with, but currently they’re claiming tariffs are a “negotiation tactic”,”bargaining from strength’, and not just a bully throwing a tantrum. At the very least they appear ready to drop the tariff idea once something changes, but this really seems like the 10 year olds concept of being strong

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Blyat!

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

"Horosho, Trump!"

-- Putin