DefiantDandelion on Nostr: Threats of violence are used for bargaining and leverage. You are assuming like a ...
Threats of violence are used for bargaining and leverage. You are assuming like a good libtard that the other party involved, (Russia) won’t fold to US demands.
I think the above argument is dumb. I think it remains dumb when you replace violence with tarrifs and replace Russia with Russia or China or Mexico or Canada.
It’s dumb because if you are unwilling to do the thing you are threatening then you don’t have a credible threat. So if they don’t capitulate then you are locked into proceeding with your threat or else loose credibility. And it’s easy to find yourself threatening what you never intended to carry out and get yourself trapped into harming yourself with tarrifs that you never wanted.
I would be fine with tarrifs in so far as they would be aligned to a consumption tax regime. But as you said tarrifs are being used as leverage here and if we miscalculate and the other party doesn’t budge, or reciprocates, it starts a trade war of increasing tarrifs in a tit for tat manner just like military action does. And ultimately they move in the same direction, you don’t go to war with a trade partner, you end trade first and when there is no more trade to eliminate then you go to war. I would rather leave mutually beneficial trade on the table rather than walk in the direction of war (For China, Russia, or any other Nation) without a real threat to ourselves.
“Look at all the countries that have tarrifs on the US, why is it ok when they do it but not ok when the US does it back?”
There are already reciprocal tariffs inplace between us and those countries. This is a threat to increase. And just like in war an escalation can lead to either capitulation from the other side or reciprocal escalation.
Reciprocal escalation leaves the populations of both countries poorer for each round of tariffs as the prices rise.
The caution against tariffs isn’t because I don’t think there isn’t a chance they will work, it’s that there is a chance they won’t and then we are locked into the absurd threat by politicians in either country unwilling to backdown and look weak.
I think the above argument is dumb. I think it remains dumb when you replace violence with tarrifs and replace Russia with Russia or China or Mexico or Canada.
It’s dumb because if you are unwilling to do the thing you are threatening then you don’t have a credible threat. So if they don’t capitulate then you are locked into proceeding with your threat or else loose credibility. And it’s easy to find yourself threatening what you never intended to carry out and get yourself trapped into harming yourself with tarrifs that you never wanted.
I would be fine with tarrifs in so far as they would be aligned to a consumption tax regime. But as you said tarrifs are being used as leverage here and if we miscalculate and the other party doesn’t budge, or reciprocates, it starts a trade war of increasing tarrifs in a tit for tat manner just like military action does. And ultimately they move in the same direction, you don’t go to war with a trade partner, you end trade first and when there is no more trade to eliminate then you go to war. I would rather leave mutually beneficial trade on the table rather than walk in the direction of war (For China, Russia, or any other Nation) without a real threat to ourselves.
“Look at all the countries that have tarrifs on the US, why is it ok when they do it but not ok when the US does it back?”
There are already reciprocal tariffs inplace between us and those countries. This is a threat to increase. And just like in war an escalation can lead to either capitulation from the other side or reciprocal escalation.
Reciprocal escalation leaves the populations of both countries poorer for each round of tariffs as the prices rise.
The caution against tariffs isn’t because I don’t think there isn’t a chance they will work, it’s that there is a chance they won’t and then we are locked into the absurd threat by politicians in either country unwilling to backdown and look weak.