[wyldfire]

> They are intentionally a sledge-hammer. They are intentionally emotional. Intentionally full of jingoistic rhetoric and victimhood rhetoric.

A sledgehammer sounds almost like an instrument of precision relative to the Trump administration tariffs. If they're applied and reversed on a whim, US companies would be fools to invest in building fabrication capability domestically only for the rug to be pulled out from under them tomorrow.

And apparently Trump doesn't want the prices on imports to rise [1]? So, if importers and retailers eat the costs of the new tariffs, how can domestic production compete any easier than it could with the baseline conditions?

It's not jingoism or victimhood, it's just ineptitude writ large. Trump can't achieve his own policy goals because he's standing in his own way.

[1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1145236386231...

[pfannkuchen]

A more generous interpretation might be that he doesn’t expect anyone to retool until things settle down, and he is actually implementing tariffs as a shock tactic to force negotiations starting on strong terms. I haven’t read his book but my understanding is that this is an instantiating of the abstract negotiation pattern he endorses in the art of the deal.

The alternative would be to negotiate quietly in back rooms before announcing, which is what is usually done. Would that be less chaotic? Definitely. Would it result in equally good or better trade deals as the shock method? Unclear, it’s not obvious that it would.

He also likes dramatic optics.

I don’t agree with the guy on most things, but I really think many people mischaracterize him pretty severely.

[Animats]

> A more generous interpretation might be that he doesn’t expect anyone to retool until things settle down.

A sizable "retooling" already took place with Canadian oil. As of last month, Canada is now exporting more oil to China than to the US. US oil exports to China have stopped.[1] This is not projected. This has already happened.

This is a win for China. Getting oil from Canada reduces China's dependence on the Middle East. Getting tankers across the Pacific is a straight run in open water. No bottlenecks at the Straits of Hormutz, no Suez Canal, no war zones.

Expect West Coast gasoline prices to go up.

(Much of this is related to where pipeline are. Pipeline connections to the Western US from Texas barely exist. Meanwhile, in 2024, a major pipeline between the Alberta oil fields and the Vancouver region ports was completed and is in operation.)

[Animats]

Forgot the link: [1]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/canadas-crude-oi...

[StackRanker3000]

> I don’t agree with the guy on most things, but I really think many people mischaracterize him pretty severely.

How? What do you think people think of him that’s untrue?

Since he first got seriously involved into politics I haven’t seen any evidence that he has a sophisticated understanding of anything, except two things: how to negotiate when he’s in a strong position to bully his counterparty, and pandering to his base.

Like a sibling comment points out, you refer to The Art of the Deal, but that was written entirely by his ghostwriter Tony Schwartz (according to both the author and the publisher). Schwartz has even said he thinks it should be recategorized as fiction.

[nickpsecurity]

Watch the Joe Rogan interview with Trump to see what he's really like:

https://youtu.be/hBMoPUAeLnY?si=IJxxRE-RuL9FHKpE

What we normally see is a stage persona. He also speaks differently when dealing with hostiles vs people acting like he's a human being. Rogan's style brings out people's real personalities better.

[StackRanker3000]

Is there any particular segment of this chat where he said something you found insightful or thought showed his deep understanding of some complex topic? I don’t doubt that he can be pleasant and charismatic when shooting the breeze with people in a friendly atmosphere, that’s not the critique I have of him.

[nickpsecurity]

Watch the parts about the windmill farms and the lake that used to be in California.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

> he endorses in the art of the deal.

https://archive.is/jbYoN

[watwut]

Well, gigantic tariffs with china were dropped to just huge ... and he got nothing for it. Asian counties that were willing to do deals have none, because Trump administration frustrates them by not knowing wtf they want.Talks with EU are stalled and UK deal amounts to not much.

It is easy to argue normal negotiations work better.

[nwienert]

> he got nothing for it

bias talking, it's impossible to know what he got since he's actively negotiating behind the scenes

[vannevar]

A less generous---and probably more accurate, given Trump's business and legal history---interpretation is that the tariffs are not for any legitimate public policy reason at all, but are simply to give Trump personal leverage to extort foreign nations for the gain of himself and his family.

[whattheheckheck]

Most things Many people Really think Pretty severely

Those are the biggest weasel words anyone has ever seen before

[resters]

Thank you for articulating this. I think it's what a lot of his supporters think is happening. What perplexes me are the following:

1) Is "The Art of the Deal" respected among actual business leaders and negotiators as a substantive contribution to negotiation tactics?

2) If what Trump is doing is in fact a highly effective tactic, how is it possible that so many people who are skilled at negotiation, skilled a business, far more wealthy and successful than Trump, etc., etc., fail to see the genius of it? I'm pretty sure that if there were actually something to it, at least some of those types of people would "come around" to supporting it and they would explain what he's doing to the American people (if it's right out of "The Art of the Deal" then clearly any negotiating adversary would be familiar with the tactic since the book is a short, quick read).

3) How would the negotiation tactics Trump is using be described/framed by traditional game theorists and tacticians? Suppose Trump is actually highly disciplined in the execution of a grand strategy, what would there be to object to, the tactic of acting unpredictably? Or would there be criticism of the downside risk of the strategy being unacceptable?

4) What has Trump or the US gained in the past from these kind of tactics? I'm serious when I say that I don't think Trump has improved the US negotiated position in any of the domains he's promised to. His revisions to NAFTA were trivial, his revisions to the Iran deal resulted in the US having a far weaker hand, his negotiations with N. Korea were inconsequential, and his negotiations (so far) with Mexico and Canada have seemingly harmed all parties and reduced trust, thus reducing the chances for a better outcome in the future. on Ukraine/Russia there is not really any negotiating to be done, it's more of a question of whether the US wants to keep spending money on an expensive and risky war that we are losing while pretending we are not actually in one.

5) In trade negotiations, what is the "back room"? I realize the US is opaque domestically and internationally about what is US "national interest", but typically with trade the incentives are extremely clear -- there are always domestic factions on both sides who are the relative winners or losers of any change to tariffs or trade policy, etc.

[wyldfire]

> I don’t agree with the guy on most things, but I really think many people mischaracterize him pretty severely.

I'm not so sure you're right about that. He's dishonest, corrupt, and vain. So a lot of the disgust that is directed his way seems well-deserved.

I would believe it if you told me that if he somehow proposed a policy that was for the genuine benefit of all of his constituents that some would knee-jerk oppose it. But -- due to his vanity and corruption - we'll never see that come to pass.