how Europe started a trade war with the United States

Author: WyIted

Posts

Total: 44
Topic's author
#1
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,168
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Let's ignore the fact that Europe mooches off of America's military might be using 1% of there GDP for military while the United States subsidizes them and as a result uses 25% of it's GDP on the military despite zero benefit for doing so. 

Europe has been attacking America for years with a 10% tarrifs on America's auto industry while we only tarrifs heir cars at 2%. Trump is just trying to equal the playing field here. If it increases costs, blame Europe for attacking American business with high tarrifs first. 

Europe also has a VAT tax. Meaning if you import a car from Europe to drive it will cost 30% in taxes for you (a tarrifs essentially) while a European who has an American car exported will just pay like the 2.5% tarrif.

All this media claiming Trump is imposing a tarrifs and it might cause a trade war are lying. These are retaliatory tarrifs that have been harming American workers by nations who mooch off of our military might and who are supposed to be allies.


Topic's author
#2
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,168
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Canada charges a 270% tarrifs on American dairy, attacking American farmers.


For tarrifs auto

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2025/02/08/eu-unilateral-auto-tariff-offer-to-us-might-shelter-its-car-makers/
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,844
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
There is no economic advantage being in a military alliance with EU when the EU has a trade cartel that excludes the USA (and Canada too!). If they want to only trade among themselves, then they can rely on each other to protect each other within their own exclusive economic group they created for themselves.

Either allow American membership into the EU, or USA can reconsider it's membership in NATO.
#4
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
There is no economic advantage being in a military alliance with EU when the EU has a trade cartel that excludes the USA (and Canada too!). If they want to only trade among themselves, then they can rely on each other to protect each other within their own exclusive economic group they created for themselves.

Either allow American membership into the EU, or USA can reconsider it's membership in NATO.
You are totally wrong again.
Does the EU trade with Canada?
The European Union (EU) is one of the largest economies in the world and Canada's second-largest trading partner. The Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) presents Canadian businesses with preferential access to and excellent opportunities for growth in the EU.

Does the EU trade with US?
U.S. total goods trade with the European Union were an estimated $975.9 billion in 2024. U.S. goods exports to the European Union in 2024 were $370.2 billion, up 0.7 percent ($2.6 billion) from 2023. U.S goods imports from the European Union totaled $605.8 billion in 2024, up 5.1 percent ($29.4 billion) from 2023.

#5
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,797
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
I heard that this trade war Trump is promoting worldwide is necessary to reduce the federal debt. I'm not sure how that works because I'm not an economist but according to the plan the only way to reduce the US debt is by freezing the market or the consumption.

It sounds crazy and very risky but this is a matter of life and death because the US should pay twenty and some percent of its whole debt very soon. It's a ticking bomb and Trump should act asap.
Topic's author
#6
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,168
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@IlDiavolo
I am not sure how serious it should be taken but I think this guy at least wants some feathers in his cap. Being able to say he fixed the debt I think is high on his list. 

We also was allowing America to be terrified even unfairly due to lingering cold war politics, where we felt that it was better that we get some unfair trades than that these countries suffer and end up going the way of communism.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,844
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Turning off foreign aid was a very good first step. It's like taking a credit card away from a drunken wife. The first step to admitting America can't afford all that nonsense.
Topic's author
#8
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,168
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I honestly don't mind the money that was spent trying to make middle eastern countries gay. I think if we just triple down on that it could pay huge dividends. USAid is a way to weld soft power so I think instead of all the tranny shit we should just use it to spread Christianity. Spreading Christianity is going to be useful to the West assuming it's not a gay version of Christianity or voodoo with Christian themes like in some African countries. 

Christianity can simultaneously be used to pown the Chinese and a Islamic countries
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,844
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
I don't think the ROI is really worth it if we can't even get free trade agreements or force them to eat cheeseburgers.

Christianity can simultaneously be used to pown the Chinese and a Islamic countries
China doesn't pay a huge cost for cracking down on diversity. The Chinese people expect it at this point. Middle Eastern people won't accept Christianity unless the people can maintain the hierarchy of the masculine male. And that old school Christianity is nearly gone from the world.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,844
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Surprisingly, AI agreed with my summary assessment. It didn't call me names like it used to! Evolution?
#11
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Turning off foreign aid was a very good first step. It's like taking a credit card away from a drunken wife. The first step to admitting America can't afford all that nonsense.
The courts disagree with you.

Supreme Court rejects Trump's request to keep billions in ...
The Trump administration revealed in court filings in the case that it is attempting to terminate more than 90% of the USAID foreign aid awards.



Topic's author
#12
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,168
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
The supreme court didn't disagree that its a good first step, they disagreed that it is a legal first step.

17 days later

#13
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
Wylted 1:
Let's ignore the fact that Europe mooches off of America's military might be using 1% of there GDP for military while the United States subsidizes them and as a result uses 25% of it's GDP on the military despite zero benefit for doing so. [1]

Europe has been attacking America for years with a 10% tarrifs on America's auto industry while we only tarrifs heir cars at 2%. Trump is just trying to equal the playing field here. If it increases costs, blame Europe for attacking American business with high tarrifs first. [2]

Europe also has a VAT tax. Meaning if you import a car from Europe to drive it will cost 30% in taxes for you (a tarrifs essentially) while a European who has an American car exported will just pay like the 2.5% tarrif.[3]

All this media claiming Trump is imposing a tarrifs and it might cause a trade war are lying.[4] These are retaliatory tarrifs that have been harming American workers by nations who mooch off of our military might and who are supposed to be allies. [5]

[1] You are mistaken. The USA does not spend 25% on its GDP on the military and the EU spends more than 1% on defense.
How does the USA subsidize Europe? The USA does subsidize Israël for killing and subduing Palestinians, while the EU pays for rebuilding the damage done by Israël.
[2] That is incorrect. Europe is not attacking America. The tariff of 10% on cars is not specific to the USA, but on all imported cars. Moreover, the USA tariffs imported cars at 2,5%. The comparison of auto tariffs is selective and lacks context about broader trade relationships and different market structures. For example, the USA import tariff on light trucks is 25%.
The WTO framework is designed to promote overall trade liberalization across sectors, not reciprocal matching of tariff levels in specific industries. The organization encourages resolving trade disputes through its established dispute settlement mechanisms rather than through unilateral retaliatory measures. Basically, the opposite of what Trump is doing.
[3] That is misrepresentation. The EU VAT is not a tariff and applies to both imported and domestic products. Therefore it does not discriminate against USA products.
[4] You are mistaken. A lie must be false and with the intend to deceive. Since it is true, it can’t be a lie.
[5] The USA doesn’t spend a lot on its defense to protect Europe, but because it likes having the biggest army. The USA doesn’t protect shipping lanes in the Gulf region to help Europe. If they don’t do it, China will, which from the USA point of view would be worse.
The USA was out of self-interest also acting in the interest of Europe. The case can be made the Europe should have been a better ally and helped the USA more.

Greyparrot  7:
Turning off foreign aid was a very good first step. It’s like taking a credit card away from a drunken wife. The first step to admitting America can’t afford all that nonsense.
It not foreign aid but development aid and American in media abroad that have been nerfed. Paying Israël to bomb Palestinians is money better spent.

#14
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 28
Posts: 1,396
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Amoranemix
Are you AI?
#15
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,735
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
You know what they always forget to mention is this: If America made better products, we would just buy American products and foreign tariffs wouldn't matter.


Trump's economic enemies list is a comfort as the possibility that it's somebody else's fault is always a comfort.


It's true they manipulate and and protect their own industries, they act to control the means of production; but it only works because of the beam in our own eye: The fact that the federal government is stealing everything.

Deregulate, abolish taxation. Then it won't be our problem.
#16
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You know what they always forget to mention is this: If America made better products, we would just buy American products and foreign tariffs wouldn't matter.
Americans will buy products even if they are made in China. Eg. Trump bibles and Trump’s MAGA hats.

62 days later

#17
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 15
0
0
2
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
0
2
Two wrongs do not make right. Tariffs, when their effects are properly tracked, are nothing more than a tax on domestic traders: it is an illusion that a tariff imposed on another country forces that country's taxpayers to pay it, and not a single serious economist takes this vision seriously. Suppose the EU does impose a 10% tariff on American car imports - and this tariff harms both European traders (who would love to pay less to import American cars) and American automakers (who suffer from a reduced European demand on their cars). What does the US imposing a "retaliatory" tariff do? It exacerbates the issue on both sides. These tariffs do not cancel out each other - they sum up and make the problem worse.

Again, all serious economists - even the ones supporting Trump - agree with that. The latter just, for some bizarre reason, tend to assume that Trump plays some kind of 3-dimensional Go game the ultimate purpose of which is to get other countries to lift off their tariffs. Well, how has it worked so far? How did it work in his first term? There is no 3-dimensional Go thing going on here; there is just a crazy old man who does not understand basic economics. Biden did not understand it either, to be fair - but, at least, Biden was not as petty as to shake fists and threaten old allies.

I think Trump's first term was mediocre - better than both Obama's terms and the Biden's term, but not much better... His second term, on the other hand, is some kind of a perpetual tantrum: the guy has gone completely off the rails. I will go as far as to say that this is the worst presidential performance I have seen anywhere in the developed world over the past 20 years.
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,844
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@MayCaesar
Biden was not as petty as to shake fists and threaten old allies.
That's probably why they kicked him out of the party. Because he put foreign allies first over Americans.

#19
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,932
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@MayCaesar

His second term, on the other hand, is some kind of a perpetual tantrum: the guy has gone completely off the rails.
  Tru-dat!
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,844
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Considering that was a train to extinction, going off the rails is necessary. If the destination is elitism, corruption, and decay, derailment isn’t madness, it’s survival. The nation was built on tantrums and it will thrive on tantrums and outrage against the machine-like unholy trinity of control, theft, and division in order to ensure a future of unified liberty and prosperity.
#21
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,932
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

I think that anyone who is not on SS yet should never get SS.
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,844
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
They stole from your SS. And you want to get back on  that rail. Shame.

SS was supposed to be a lockbox, not equity for govt pork futures...
The government spent every dime of surplus Social Security money and then stuffed the trust fund with IOUs to itself.... yeah,  lets get off that train sir.
Topic's author
#23
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,168
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I recognize your cadence and approve of your new assistant 
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,844
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
ty.

The unholy trinity part took a good 10 minutes to iron out.
#25
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 15
0
0
2
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
0
2
-->
@Greyparrot

That's probably why they kicked him out of the party. Because he put foreign allies first over Americans.
This is a strange idea, that one has to necessarily choose between either putting Americans first or putting foreign allies first. There is such a thing as mutually beneficial interactions, and there are mutually damaging interactions - and the fact that someone does a lip service to "putting Americans first" does not prevent their actions from contributing to the latter.

Trump's tariffs harm all sides involved, and aside from some crony politicians and business owners, nobody benefits from them. Which Americans is he putting first by making, say, aluminum prices skyrocket? Sure, companies mining aluminum here in the US will certainly profit from this protectionist policy; from the data I can find, it amounts to approximately 30,000 Americans. In contrast, the rest 340,000,000 Americans have seen aluminum prices jump by over 50% in some cases recently, upon the tariff announcement - driving up prices of countless goods.

<--- This American does not want to subsidize a small special interest group: I want to spend my money on me, not on them. But apparently, I am not included in that subset of Americans that are put first. Maybe... maybe there is only one American that Donald puts first, and his first name is Donald?
Topic's author
#26
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,168
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@MayCaesar
Trump's tariffs harm all sides involved, and aside from some crony politicians and business owners, nobody benefits from them. 
If they are bad for all sides why is America literally last in the boat with this. If auto tarrifs are bad why does the EU tarrifs American vehicles so highly? Why does China have high tarrifs?

Also isn't better jobs being available a good thing even if it comes at the cost of no longer having to compete with slave labor in China or sweatshops run by small children in Pakistan? 

Yes we can benefit a lot off of slave labor but isn't slave labor a bad thing? 
#27
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 15
0
0
2
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
0
2
-->
@WyIted
I would think that it is because the US generally handles economy much better than other countries. Or, at least, it used to... After the past 5-6 years, I am not so sure anymore. But the US economy is certainly run much-much better than the Chinese economy or economies of most EU members. If Trump wants the US economy to be more similar to those economies than it used to be, then it sounds like he, indeed, puts those countries before the US, by definition.

The second argument is weird. Suppose there is a Chinese slaver that sells the produce to the US. Will he stop his slaving practices if the US market becomes less attractive? Why would he? Because Trump asks him nicely? There is zero evidence that protectionist policies have effects like this - and there is plenty of evidence that they, in fact, have the opposite effect. Again, tariffs hurt both economies. Because now trading with the US is more difficult, the Chinese economy weakens, making everyone poorer - and guess what poverty produces, among other things? Shady labor practices.

The way out of slavery is modernization of economy, and the best way to accomplish that is to have access to the modern markets. By blocking off the US market, Trump encourages slavery in China. Sure, some people who just swallow whatever he says will sleep a little better at night, thinking that they are sacrificing their own well-being to help someone in China - but in reality, they are sacrificing their own well-being to help a bunch of guys and gals in Washington and their private sponsors. This is not exactly rocket science.
Topic's author
#28
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,168
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@MayCaesar
The second argument is weird. Suppose there is a Chinese slaver that sells the produce to the US. Will he stop his slaving practices if the US market becomes less attractive? 
Yes he would because it costs to employ this slave labor even if it's just having the machines up and running they work on. If the company is not profitable they'll maybe look at the United States and say "wow not being evil towards employees makes companies rich, I will stop being evil"

So if they are profiting now perhaps they can't look at successful people and emulate them but if they are struggling they will be forced to. 

So with modernizing China's economy. Maybe if you make them suffer they look at modern economies and go "gee that works better maybe we do that" and then they do that and we have fair trading partners
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,844
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
@MayCaesar
There is such a thing as mutually beneficial interactions, and there are mutually damaging interactions - and the fact that someone does a lip service to "putting Americans first" does not prevent their actions from contributing to the latter.
Yes, and the  American government putting Americans last by never ending the Marshall plan long after the cold war ended ensured there would be nothing mutually beneficial except to the government. Instead we get predatory countries with perpetual tariffs against America, and the government calls that an "ally"
American manufacturing gets hit with tariffs, VAT schemes, and regulatory red tape, while we’re told to treat these countries like indispensable allies. Meanwhile, they buy U.S. military protection, feed our government, use the savings to invest in themselves, and smile as they lock us out of their markets.

With allies like those, who needs enemies?

#30
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 15
0
0
2
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
0
2
-->
@WyIted
Because of a new tariff police from one country, a Chinese slaver will suddenly rethink his life choices, including the choice to practice slavery in the first place - which is as illegal in China as it is in the US - and start emulating American companies? The very companies that clearly are afraid of open competition and rely on protectionist policies to succeed? That is not a display of the strength of the American economy, and this theory does not seem to make much sense.

Empirically, it is the opposite: the least successful economies are also the ones featuring the largest amount of dark practices like slavery and mandatory child labor. In China slavery, actually, is quite uncommon, so it is a weird example anyway - and China has long ago restructured its economy to be more akin to the US economy.

Sorry, but it is hard to take these claims as anything other than rationalization of Trump's reckless and random economical policy. Trump himself has never said that the purpose of tariffs was to discourage slavery elsewhere, as far as I know. I am not sure why people are trying so hard to find new reasons to approve of his actions.