I'm going to start this discussion with a simple request:
Please focus on the topic at hand.
The world seems to have turned into a giant group of prairie dogs with no collective attention span, so I humbly request that instead of derailing the conversation with whataboutisms, that we all focus on making fact-based points about the topic. And what is that topic? Well, it's trade, of course.
What in the goddamn name of hell is America doing? I've done a fair few things in my career, but my academic work includes a graduate degree in economics, so I'd like to better understand the economic and financial rationale behind the current US administration's trade policies. A year ago, President Trump said, "America first doesn't mean America alone." But it sure looks that way at the moment.
Now, trade is complicated, so it's tough to call BS when the scent of feces is in the air. Most people barely understand rudimentary economics. The vast majority of people don't understand value-added taxes or the differences between them or simple sales taxes (hint: there is no difference). Tariffs, however, are moronically simple. They almost universally result in higher prices for consumers. Enacting tariffs on national security grounds against its closest allies in a vain attempt to get them to repeal all protectionist measures they have in place without offer any concessions on the protectionist measures the US has in place feels like an awful negotiating strategy.
Most importantly, if that was the intent, it didn't work, and it's unlikely to work. Perhaps it was just some posturing leading into the meeting with North Korea this week. Maybe Trump wants to show he's independent and unpredictable to throw Kim off-balance, but I think that's probably giving the US President too much credit. I suppose it's also possible that in the spat with Canada in particular, Trump would like a concession for US dairy producers exporting to Canada without giving something up. After all, if you create a new tariff, then say you did so for national security reasons, maybe you can take that extra security risk associated with importing some Canadian steel and aluminum (by removing the tariff) if they're willing to make some concessions. That way, you disrupt the status quo without giving an inch and gain something for nothing. Unfortunately, this isn't particularly crafty and it certainly doesn't constitute statecraft.
As a self-styled deal-maker, Trump has to recognize the 'art of the deal' is found where our two WIIFMs reach an equilibrium. Right now, he doesn't seem to be solving for that at all, but simply maximizing his own WIIFM, assuming that solution to be the best for America (or maybe just best for him). But that sort of deal-making generally only works when you have a great deal of leverage over your counterparty and they need to transact. While the US is by far the most important member of the G7, the other world leaders won't keep getting to attend those meetings if they look weak and get voted out of office. They too have to play to their home audiences, and making concessions to the US to satisfy the whims of the current president won't play favorably for any of them.
And the thing is--this isn't one of those times Trump just did a bad job of explaining a complicated subject which he barely understands himself. His trade position seems inconsistent and numerically indefensible enough to be counted amongst his many lies. That said, maybe I just need someone better-versed than me to school me on the numbers. If any of you care to explain to me the relative trading positions of the G7, I'd be interested in seeing a comprehensive list of tariffs or protectionist measures imposed by each county against other members of the group. I'd love to know if there is any actual economic support for the US President's claims.
brotherbear, sorry about the lack of response. Maybe one of these topics will help:
Calling relevant pros to the rescue! EvoIX850r scottloposer Vichea Mao
You're welcome.
Donald Trump is a prime example of Dunning-Kruger gone wild. He is not competent enough to realize how little he knows about how economics, geopolitics, or even deal-making work. Unfortunately, the problem is less Trump and more his base. Across the developed world we are seeing a backlash against "experts." In the modern age of information there exists a large counter-culture--anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, or Brexit campaigners just to name a few. Our initial reaction is to ask why people would sabotage themselves. Game theory teaches us that rational actors can make sub-optimal conclusions, while the works of Kahneman and Tversky explain that human decision making is incredibly flawed.
I'm not sure how it will play out, but it "feels" like it will get worse before it begins to get better. In short, Trump's trade policies are indefensible.
completely agree. my hope is the pendulum will swing the other way and these morons will be outed as what they really are
Great points. To build upon your Kahnemann and Tversky argument, most people tend to use simple heuristics when dealing with problems. Having a rule-of-thumb works great for simple tasks in our everyday life, but can lead to a number of fallacies when dealing with more complex problems such as global trade or diplomacy. Trump is not necessarily at fault here, (there are more than 100 advisors he can rely on for these problems) but a guy that does business with his "gut" or "intuition" seems, using my own personal heuristics, to be more prone to misapprehension.
That seems to add credibility to Trump in regards to his base. Ann Coulter was on Bill Maher a few weeks ago and I found the interview revealing-- she sees his disregard for experts indicative of his independence, making him seemingly more likely to follow through on his campaign promises. Though I understand the logic, being opposed to most of his promises and campaign pledges makes me a bit horrified.
Trump acts on a scorched earth policy. If you set the whole thing on fire, you leave no prisoners. The things he sees as important issues, are either homeruns because not enough people are talking about them when they should, or they’re homeruns because everyone is talking about them but no one is doing anything about them.
The issue lies in what you pointed out, which is that he’s not intelligent, experienced, nor competent enough to handle the issues with grace and develop successful solutions. His presidency has led me to realize, you really don’t need to swing for the fences every time. It’s ok to go for a base hit. He clearly bit off more than he can chew and I guess the strategy now is to just keep hacking away, take the 100 and get at least one to go his way.
Rem similique consectetur ipsa dolorum. Voluptatem ea labore vero nam quia architecto numquam cum. Quo qui omnis aperiam et quisquam natus. Non id quisquam corporis et necessitatibus doloremque deleniti rerum. Qui possimus et perspiciatis molestias fugiat. Eligendi quas est ut unde repellendus sed quia qui. Maiores voluptas corporis non.
Velit dolorum sequi reiciendis repellat et odit. Consequatur voluptatem dolores consequatur saepe laudantium. Qui iusto ut voluptas nihil.
Magnam minus et quidem aut optio. Reiciendis aut non cumque aut soluta enim ut. At quas nulla ex saepe blanditiis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...