This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why is the manager being desperate if he no longer subsidizes your purchases?
Again, bad market metaphors are bad metaphors, but the US economic relationship with Europe- the 'supermarket'- is not a net moneymaker for the US. The trade balance between the US and EU is, and has for decades been, in Europe's favor, in part because of trade barriers such as the European common market wall.
If you want to make a marketplace metaphor, this is the market selling to the consumers at a loss. There can be benefits for the US side of the of the trade (advantage to the specific industries benefiting more), there can be non-monetary gains from providing subdisized services, but if you want to model the relationship as a commercial transaction (shopper and supermarket), the supermarket stops losing money the sooner it gets out of the business of subsidizing goods.
This is a mercantilist perspectives that get involved in arguments of why mercantilism isn't a good strategy for countries even if it makes sense for businesses, and service-vs-good economy differences, but the business case for the US-European relationship is not 'the Europeans bring in more commercial profits than costs.'
You are not in conflict with Donald Trump when you say you do not believe that there is no real threat, you are in agreement. What you consider blackmail is just the natural extension of that consensus.
The American-European economic relationship for the better part of the last century has been an extension of the Cold War American-European strategic alliance. But instead of the classic hegemon relationship of military protection in exchange for preferential market access for the hegemon (hegemon provides client protection in exchange for money), the Cold War alliance was the inverse- the Americans gave the Europeans preferential market access in exchange for strategic deference. This started with the Marshal Plan, continued with things like the trilateral agreements for getting the Japanese and Koreans during their recognistruction phases, and continued in various forms elsewhere.
If the Europeans are uninterested, unable, and/or otherwise unwilling to provide strategic deference- particularly due to a lack of mutual need- there is no strategic basis for continuing to pay for the strategic relationship.
The result of this what you call 'blackmail'- threatening to no longer pay (via ending preferential trade access that were the forms of payment) for services no longer rendered (strategic deference and military partnership).
OK, so the main disagreement is that I think trade balance is irrelevant . Trade isn’t a zero sum game where the US sells ‘at loss’ because they have a trade deficit. It’s kind of the opposite really, given that trade surplus countries are accused of ‘dumping’ manufactured goods like electric cars or planes they supposedly produce at a loss.
The excellent american economic health has gone hand in hand with trade deficits, to the point that many have suspected that americans get free stuff while the rest of the world gets worthless dollars. I’m not saying it’s causal, just that trump’s domestic story of exploited americans might not play as well elsewhere, when he’s negotiating supermarket prices. Non-americans have their own exploitation story, and at least they're, you know, poorer.
Because I see trade as mutually beneficial, you can understand why trump’s threats look more like ‘blackmail’ to me , and I understand why to you or trump it’s just ‘putting pressure’.
And yet, trade balance is incredibly relevant to a supermarket metaphor. The supermarket is in the business iof maintaining a positive trade balance with its customers, because if the supermarket does not then then supermarket goes out of business. This is, in fact, the basis of the threat to go to another (China) supermarket- it is a threat to reduce the trade income with MuricaMart, on the assumption that MuricaMart makes a profit off of trading with you.
If you think a supermarket's profitability is irrelevant to the interest of a supermarket staying in business, you are not talking about a supermarket.
Because the trade balance was itself a trade- a systemic trade bias in European favor (thanks to higher tariffs against American goods than for European goods) in exchange for European military cooperation against the American geopolitical rival. That prioritization of shared security over money was the positive sum dynamic that motivated the initial alliance beyond the monetary cost.
When the Europeans are not interested (as you are not) or able (as the continent is not) in upholding that positive-sum game, then the negative-sum game of trade flows absent other interests reasserts itself.
Good news! Donald Trump will graciously allow the Europeans to be free of that accusation by magnanimously leveling trade barriers and trade deficits that the Europeans currently have over the United States. He will even support the Europeans in raising their own anti-dumping tariffs on any global overproducers, of which the most notable is China.
If you are poor, what do you think you have to offer for preferential trade access to the American market?
Remember that the approval of European public is not required for the end of the structural basis of the European-American alliance via the end of American economic subsidies to the poorer European public from the American end. (Arguably, European public opinion has already approved of this from the European end, by continuing to vote for decades of demilitarization and increasing strategic autonomy before there was an end to advantageous trade terms.)
The American public, at least, has in the last election indicated it is not convinced that major trade deficits are the cause of American economic health, as opposed to unnecessary costs that lowered them more than they could have otherwise risen. They may be wrong, but being wrong does not change ambivalence for ending subsidies to other continents, despite the near-term economic disruption that could bring.
The question for the European public, as a result, is what does it want to offer- if does and if it can- to keep some manner of American subsidies coming, even if at a reduced rate.
Apparently not, since you misunderstand my position (or seem to believe it is Trump's). Instead, let me try to place your position and the Trumpian position in an inconvenient context.
You see trade as mutually beneficial, but you do not want to deliver what was traded in the original Euro-American alliance- Europe's military-strategic deference against the American geopolitical rival.
The Trumpian perspective is that this is fine! This is your sovereign choice. He just also does not see a point in continuing to provide concessions that were initially provided for such a military-strategic deference deal. He will not blame you for it if you think it's a bad deal. He doesn't think it's a good deal either. That's why he's willing to reduce it.
The inconvenient context is that this is only blackmail if there is an expectation that European market access preferences are an entitlement that should be provided regardless of degree European strategic alignment.
If there is no European entitlement to preferential market access, then what we are observing is not blackmail, but the mutually consenting unraveling of a former trade deal: the Europeans no longer want to offer strategic deference, and the Americans no longer want to subsidize the Europeans.
Buying an item in the supermarket (or trading beans for bacon with my neighbour) is a mutually beneficial transaction. I don’t owe walmart military service afterwards.
Was this military-support-for-one-sided-tariffs agreement commented on by anyone at the time (preferably european)? These needlessly complicated ‘subventions’ breed confusions. Next time we’ll take it in cash, not in trade.
You’ve had a way bigger deficit against china than us for a long time. What did they agree to do for you in order to get this preferential treatment? We have a big deficit against saudi arabia – is that a subsidy too?
The average tariff between US-EU is 3%. I don’t mind equalizing if you find an ‘unfair’ percent here and there, but it’s not going to meaningfully change the balance of trade, because it depends on other characteristics of the economy. So Trump is still going to claim exploitation and raise tariffs 25 % and so the people, agreeing to disagree, will mutually consent to the unraveling of mutually beneficial trade.
If the supermarket is losing money selling to you, it is not a mutually beneficial transaction.
A transaction is only mutually beneficial for the supermarket if both parties are getting something they want that is worth more (to them) than what they give up. What the supermarket wants in exchange for your purchases is money. If the supermarket is losing money on the deal, it is not getting more than it loses.
Because Walmart is not subsidizing you for a military alliance. Which is why the supermarket metaphor is, again, bad. The European-American alliance relationship is not like your relationship with Walmart.
It's fine that you don't want to provide military support to your allies. It's even fine if you don't want military allies. Just don't expect to benefit from economic benefits provided in exchange for a military alliance without the military alliance.
...yes. There is plenty of historical documentation on the strategic rational of the Marshal Plan, from both sides of the Atlantic. It is not hard to find. Nor is the history of the European-Japanese and European-Korean trade relations.
You can search for it on your own if you are curious, though I'd actually recommend against the Europeans for anything more recent (since the EU's creation), since the EU establishment has significant interest incentives to downplay, ignore, or reframe why US-EU tariff barriers are at the level they are. The general EU-adjacent policy sphere refrain is that EU tariff walls don't meaningfully hinder American trade with Europe, but also that equivalent tariff barriers is very bad.
If you insist, pending your ability to arrange such. Mercenaries with little military capabilities to offer have little ability to dictate terms, however, and cash transfers are less enduring than trade concessions.
And you'll note that Trump has been an even larger advocate of tariffs against the Chinese than against the Europeans. This is a poor whataboutism, given the politician involved.
As for what the Chinese agreed to- the answer is they didn't, nor did they need to beyond some promises for market reforms that they've largely ignored. The post-Cold War US administrations thought integrating China into global markets markets would lead to political liberalization, which would have been the 'benefit.' This was expected to occur naturally. It did not occur / has not occured, and is generally considered a major strategic mistake of the Clinton administration.
No, European purchases of middle eastern energy is transactional. Notably, the Arabs are making a profit off of providing their good/service to the Europeans at market rates.
There is no meaningful 'average tariff.' Averaging non-comparable categories leads to meaningless numbers, given the difference in the scale of the economies those tariffs apply to and the relative importance applied to them.
To bring a relevant specific category: automobile manufacturing. During the first Trump administration, it was considered extremely provocative when Trump raised the import tariff of 2.5% on European cars, in a context of importing 1.15 million cars for around 43 billion. At the time, the European tariff barrier for automobiles was 10%, in a market about 260k US cars exported for around 6 billion.
Even if there was an entire category of X-but-small trade volume at 0% tariffs, that wouldn't mean the 'average' tariff was 5%.
The characteristics of the economic differences is the point of the protectionism.
From a macroeconomic perspective, the US primarily exports services and resources, and inputs manufactured goods. This is in part a result of the American macroeconomic decision to export manufacturing during globalization, which significantly impacted American manufacturing capability while bolstering other parts of the world- especially China. Various parts of those industrial base losses were relevant to military production rates, as military industry is converted from / tied to domestic industrial manufactuing capacity.
The Americans are in the process of re-industrializing, for strategic and other reasons. Part of that is setting the rules so that the economic incentives of companies isn't to immediately decamp industry and then sell from outside of the US to the US. These are characteristics of the economy that are being deliberately changed.
In this respect, the Americans are aligning to a European norm. The Europeans were embracing industrial policy as a systemic government priority well before the Americans, and won the argument. Trump, Biden, and now Trump again are adopting a more European-understanding of the value of trade barriers.
There is not a mutual consensus that it is mutually beneficial trade. That is a point you do not acknowledge because you do not want to agree that it is not mutually beneficial, even though your concession is not necessary, by definition, for there to be a lack of mutual consensus.
You may think the trade is mutually beneficial, and you may think that the Americans should feel the trade is mutually beneficial, but your thoughts do not matter for whether the Americans in question believe it is mutually beneficial trade. If they do not, they will not continue as if it is.
The question, as raised earlier, is what you are willing to offer to make it convincing to the Americans that it is in their interest. Given that they do not believe the current exchange ratio is favorable, you can either increase incentives, or decrease perceived costs.
That goes for the US as well, they have incentives to downplay, ignore, reframe all their own barriers(for example in the airbus-boeing trade fights). You said ‘military support for advantageous tariffs’ is an agreement. Doesn’t sound like the EU agreed to it.
Of course they are, the question is what the europeans are getting out of it, since according to your view, the buyer (guy with a trade deficit, here the european) is just handing out ‘subsidies’. So if I buy oil from an arab, that’s a fair trade, but if you buy champaign from me, that’s a subsidy?
You have a 25% tariff on light trucks including SUVs, which is the majority of the US car market.
I think it’s based on value of goods sold. So if the EU sells 100 B and the US takes in a total of 5 B tariffs, that’s an average tariff of 5%, whether some tariffs are at 0% and others at 50%.
I’ll agree that average tariff of the good traded does not mean that much since entire parts of the EU-US trade are high tariffed to zero trade happening, like a lot of agricultural products, cars.
As I said on principle I don’t mind equalizing all the tariffs (though I’ve just read the 25% light truck ‘chicken tax’ seems hard to repeal because of bipartisan support) , but it’s not going to help your trade deficit because the deficit is not caused by preferential tariffs.
No one ever truly wins these economic fad arguments, they wax and wane. It's true that european elites are fond of their dirigisme, and it always ends up being an expensive clusterfuck.
Nothing. If they don’t think trade benefits them, I can try to argue that it does, but if they don’t see it, I’m not offering a bribe, they can just walk away. They’re a free country.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link