Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cycomanic 435 days ago
What I don't understand with your argument is, how do you account for the loss of trust of your trading partners? Even if the WH responds and tweaks the tariffs there is no hiding the fact that they have damaged trust in the US as a trading partner. I mean just look at what is happening in most western countries already, there a serious reorienting away from partnership with the US. Also consider that the US is primarily a service export economy and that it's generally much easier to divest from services than manufactured goods, I suspect the moves will have caused serious and long lasting damage to US companies.
2 comments
darawk 435 days ago
The loss of trust issue is the one I worry about most. However, it's also true that the key players who we've implemented tariffs against have had them against us for years, and we've simply absorbed that.

I don't like the mechanism he chose to implement them, or the sharpness with which they were imposed, but I do think implementing actual proper reciprocal tariffs phased in over a reasonable period of time was a good idea. And I agree with you re: the service/goods issue. Them excluding services in their trade deficit calculation is by far the dumbest part of this plan.

link
cycomanic 435 days ago
Why are we talking reciprocal tariffs? It has been widely reported that the tariffs have been calculated based on trade deficit and not based on existing tariffs. That should alreadyy become clear by the fact that nobody in the western world has anywhere close to the same average tariffs, or that there are different rates for the EU and e.g. La Réunion (which is part of the EU and does not have the right to set their own tariffs).
link
ggm 435 days ago
Eh, this worries me less. I mean ideally yes trade signatures have value but we all know the reality here is that strong nations don't feel bound by international law.

I don't think "reputational harm" exists in international relations. I do think the terms of future bilateral negotiations may be less favourable to the US for a while but if they are too iniquitous they won't get ratified in Congress.

Maybe some significant 20+ year investment choices redirect. Some future 56th president will complain 47 laid the seed of this disadvantage. In every other respect after the noisy bit is over people do what they do.

link