| ▲ | hunglee2 2 hours ago |
| The world should've collectively recognised what Liberation Day was and responded together, in lock step, and in kind. Instead, the Europeans caved, Japanese caved (PM resigned after doing so), Republic of Korea caved (PM resigned after doing so), India of course caved and so on, shattering any prospect of collective action which might pull the rogue hegemon back into line. Now, the US is simply able to renege or renegotiate the bilateral deals whenever he feels like it, forcing the other party to face down the US by themselves - not many can do this, maybe only China. Anyways, I wish the Canadians well and I hope they gain global support |
|
| ▲ | Chyzwar 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| That not how politics works. It is much slower and hidden process. EU fast tracked Mercosur and other trade deals. China and Japan is slowly dumping US treasury bills, Canada is in open trade confrontation and is diversifying toward China. Everybody is shifting away from US weapons suppliers. Nobody is willing to help with Iran even on symbolic level. |
| |
| ▲ | LeFantome 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You are both right. The world capitulates more than it should. But the world is also moving away and building contingencies. The world needs leadership. And Canada is helping with that. I do not think that reciprocal tariffs are actually the answer though. They hurt both sides and the US is not a rational enough actor to respond like you hope they will. The answer is in shifting trade away from the US and isolating their economy. It takes longer but it is what will work. And even if their behaviour does not change, their power will fade with their economy. |
|
|
| ▲ | wwice an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> India of course caved and so on, India and US still have not signed any trade deal. Not sure what's the basis of your comment. |
| |
| ▲ | nubg an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Sir he is a Pakistani not Indian! | |
| ▲ | nojvek 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | India and China have their own trade books. No one other than close US allies caved. And even then, they all realize Trump is a mad man and cannot be relied upon. |
|
|
| ▲ | bambax 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Absolutely agree; but it's never too late to react. Europe could impose tariffs on US tech or forbid it altogether to bid on government contracts. Etc. What are we waiting for. |
| |
| ▲ | telesilla an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Geopolitics to make sense. | |
| ▲ | enraged_camel 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >> What are we waiting for. For Europe to become fully self-sufficient when it comes to defense, for one thing. | | |
| ▲ | LeFantome 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think it can be Europe, Canada, Australia, and South Korea. The world has the technology. Canada has the resources and the manufacturing capacity. Europe has the money. It can be done. Look at Ukraine. They are becoming a military superpower in terms of technology and experience. |
| |
| ▲ | hunglee2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | the bilateral deals signed means we (the world, minus the US) is already divided. Got to scrap those deals first, which isn't going to happen. The shark has scattered the shoal and we're all going to get picked off - perpetually signing worse deals, then having to renegotiate again before signing ever worse terms. | | |
| ▲ | LeFantome a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | Why does any country need a deal with the US? Canada is more integrated than anybody and they are walking away. Canada believes productive trade with the rest of the world is better than a bad deal with the US. China was prepared to do the same. The world should take notice. | |
| ▲ | amelius 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If Trump can scrap bilateral deals, then others can too, using similar tactics if necessary. | | |
| ▲ | morkalork an hour ago | parent [-] | | Apparently all you have to do is impose a digital services tax and he'll rip it up for you. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Honestly, if Trump keeps giving intelligence to Ukraine against Russia, then it was worth paying the (idiotic) tariffs. That was the EUs top priority. The other issue was that each country had its own products they didn't want to lose sales from. More generally, the EU isn't built for a world of presidential powers exercised at whom, which is becoming more of an issue this decade. | |
| ▲ | k33n an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > What are we waiting for. Responsible governance around something like when and how to retaliate (if at all) against tariffs comes down to one of the most fundamental forces of economics and trade: real leverage. Whether or not the US should exercise its leverage to attain outsized and favorable terms on the economic stage is the peanut gallery conversation that happens on social media. The two worlds couldn't be farther apart. What will actually happen in the end is just a math equation that has never changed and will never change. |
|
|
| ▲ | dzonga an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| they carved because most of those places want access to the 'yuuuge' US market. politics vs reality. they could correct though by selling US treasuries - but that would make the world economy sneeze which might result in pneumonia. |
| |
| ▲ | fifilura 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The parent point is that the response should have been done collectively. USA market is "yuuge", but rest-of-the-world market is much much bigger. |
|
|
| ▲ | coolandsmartrr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Japanese here. Caved is not an accurate expression. After intense negotiations with Trump, Lutnick, and Bessent, Minister Akazawa managed to reduced the tariff from the proposed 25% to 15%. His story of flying weekly to the States on commercial aircraft became legendary. PM's resignation stemmed from unpopularity not due to tariff negotiation, but diminished ability to pass laws after the ruling party lost significant number of seats in elections for upper and lower houses. As for other countries around the world, the world-wide inflation caused many ruling parties to lose support. |
| |
| ▲ | nubg an hour ago | parent [-] | | > managed to reduced the tariff from the proposed 25% to 15% Trumps actual goal was probably 10%. So he got more than he wanted while your PM thinks he "negotiated down" lol | | |
|
|
| ▲ | delusional 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're forgetting that their president was threatening literal invasion. These things take time. |
|
| ▲ | armada651 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Everyone is banking on the current trade policy simply being temporary and whoever replaces Trump in the White House next will restore bilateral trade to normal. Why would you destroy your trade relation with the U.S. for decades to come when you can just ride out a bad deal for a few years? Not saying I agree with it, because it sends the wrong signal, but I can understand the reasoning at least. |
| |
| ▲ | Breakthrough 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Why would you destroy your trade relation with the U.S. for decades to come when you can just ride out a bad deal for a few years? We aren't the ones who are destroying it, and we have a backbone strong enough to say this isn't good enough. If what you say is true, then the next administration should understand how one sided the damage done to the relationship has been. No economic trade partner should have to tolerate attacks on their sovereignty and unreliable trade negotiators. | |
| ▲ | ben_w an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am not sure how much of it is that, versus a mix of tariffs being paid by the recipient rather than the vendor, versus all his unpredictable behaviour being an inherent non-tariff barrier, versus it not mattering much what a deal with the USA even looks like if we all transition to other trade partners. The UK's Neville Chamberlain is remembered for saying of an agreement with Hitler, "peace for our time"*, and by this agreement, appeasement; less well known was that he did pursue re-armament and mutual defence agreements while attempting to deescalate. Hopefully we won't be here in 8 years wondering how the USA got carved up into a Canadian zone, a Chinese zone, a European zone, and an Aztec zone. That last one might be from a TV show I watched as a kid. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time | |
| ▲ | pjmlp an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think such people are delusional, I hope to be wrong and that the next elections are actually democratic, however I do have my doubts. | |
| ▲ | roncesvalles an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly. You can't assume it's a new normal until Trump is out of office. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w an hour ago | parent [-] | | His re-election suggests we need to. Even if good times return, we can now never be sure the bad are more than one election cycle away, and given the USA's bicameral government and staggered elections, that means 2 years, not 4. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mmooss 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They were not prepared and at least had to mitigate immediate harm, while preparing their economies, security, etc. to be less entangled with the US. But once they are 'prepared' as best they can, one approach is for other countries to decide / accept that the US is mostly a lost cause while Trump or most other Republicans are in power, which will happen at times. It will affect their economies but they cannot control that. Negotiating with the US only encourages more bad behavior. The rest of the world could then recreate (or continue) the global trading system, including the WTO, simply excluding countries that violate its rules. This puts the ball in the US's court to participate or not, never slamming the door in the US's face, always welcoming and encouraging them rhetorically, by their rules, and genuinely ('we look forward to our friends in the US joining and enjoying the benefits of doing business with the rest of the world'). In the meantime, global trade rules would be created in the interests of the other countries, without the US having a voice - a great boon after decades of US domination of such rules. This incentivizes the US to join sooner rather than later. (It seems to me - I have no expertise in this area.) |
|
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They still can of course, all they need to do is collectively start selling off their US treasuries. The US is at a highly vulnerable and precarious point with their potential bond market debt spiral situation, and this is a point of leverage that can be exploited to encourage improved behavior from a bully. This capital can then be reallocated into domestic investment to continue to decouple from the US. Very similar to how Germany learned the hard way that buying fossil gas from Russia wasn’t going to prevent aggression. Canada has started this with their recently announced energy investment plan, Europe can do this with Eurobonds. PM Carney announces largest clean energy investment in North American history - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49339577 - August 2026 China and Canada Energy Pact as Canada Aims to Cut Reliance on US - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46640932 - January 2026 (a component of China’s next five year plan includes LNG infra investment to support imports from Canada) On Eurobonds: Macron says €300B in EU savings sent to the US every year will be invested in EU - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46722594 - January 2026 (207 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46708337 (Canada and Europe collective hold ~$9T in US treasury debt, almost 25% of total outstanding debt) |
| |
| ▲ | sandeepkd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a classical problem. In theory it works when majority of the players work together and move in same direction, however everyone being opportunistic here makes in infeasible from long term perspective. Europe itself is in a difficult stage, its dealing with Russia on one end, has trust issues with China and now the its long term partner has gone rouge. The result of all this would be a mandate to be self sufficient aka anti-globalization | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That multipolar world mandate you mentioned is already here today. That was the outcome of the actions of this US federal administration. Trust and cooperation is done for a half decade or more. The world can’t trust this administration for the remainder of the administration, and they can’t trust the US electorate to elect adults for the next administration. Countries can either accept it and take action to manage their risk (redirect investment to continue to decouple, trade deals with rational counterparties) to attempt to achieve a favorable outcome, or not and experience the potential natural consequences. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43284950 - March 2025 > “How can I decouple from the US as fast as possible?” is what this leads to. > Diplomacy is the art of saying “good dog” until you make it to the rock. The US will apply pressure for short term gain against allies while they move away long term. | | |
| ▲ | lunatuna 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think this is where Carney landed. Trust is gone. Further, the US and the world would have a precedence in dealing with Canada. Accepting a bad deal would maintain an illusion that this was good enough and to continue on in this direction. Once Trump is gone the negotiations could restart but at a much less valuable position to Canada. Canada has had a long term investment and productivity challenge with too much focused on North and South. I suspect that this is now the catalyst for East and West investment. I think the calculation was that no deal and the natural consequences are not that much worse than the deal on the table short term. And taking into account the future of the above it was going to be worse. |
|
| |
| ▲ | iamjs 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Couldn't the US buy back more bonds through QE than any foreign country could sell? | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Debasing the currency is equivalent to a soft default, and would accelerate investment away from the dollar and treasuries. Mechanically, certainly, it can be done, but investors won’t do nothing while the US inflates their asset value away. They’ll take the loss (which they’d take anyway from monetizing the debt) and reallocate elsewhere. Part of the reason Ray Dalio was on Bloomberg saying to sell bonds and buy gold or Bitcoin. Treasuries used to be where capital would “flee for safety” and that concept is breaking down. Dalio Says Sell Bonds, Buy Gold, Bitcoin as Debt Crisis Looms - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-21/dalio-say... | https://archive.today/jlUBA - August 21st, 2026 |
|
|
|
| ▲ | thesmtsolver2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The world collectively had so much trade barriers for US goods and services and still has. They just weren’t direct like tariffs. |
| |
| ▲ | blitzar 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > trade barriers for US goods and services are the trade barriers in the room with us? | | |
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | To be fair, EU standards prevent the sale of lots of US products so that point, while misleading, is not entirely incorrect. | | |
| ▲ | Frieren an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > prevent the sale of lots of US products Not only USA products. Most countries with low safety standards and known for dangerous products are barred from trading with the EU, or at least many of their products. Recently, even big Chinese on-line shops are being targeted for selling dangerous products and lying on the description on that products. I understand that quality and safety is a diminishing goal for the USA. But I hope that other countries keep the care for their citizens as a achievable goal. > is not entirely incorrect With enough re-interpretation nothing is not entirely incorrect. Agree on the part that it is misleading. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | surgical_fire an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is not a trade barrier, that is just what you call "food" across the pond is actually trash. |
| |
| ▲ | fatbird 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In the softwood lumber dispute that's been going on for decades, the US raised (legitimately) the point that in Canada, land is granted by permit to loggers for only nominal fees; in the U.S. loggers have to pay significant amounts for rights to log. This is effectively a gov't subsidy to Canadian loggers by comparison with American loggers, allowing Canadian loggers to sell softwoods at a lower price. This is the difficulty with discussing "trade barriers": things that are simply handled differently in different countries can be (arguably) economic factors that discriminate against one side or the other, hence they're trade barriers. Complicating it further, one can create barriers that have plausible deniability, or point to unrelated factors and scream "TRADE BARRIER". I know someone who was involved for a while in the softwood lumber discussions. Just an absolute snake pit trying to suss out what are real barriers, intended barriers, relevant inputs... and all of this in the context of negotiations over the same, so everything is also "does he mean this or is he distracting us from something else or just building up a talking point to surrender later?" | |
| ▲ | ben_w an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > are the trade barriers in the room with us? Yes. And I'm saying this in the EU. e.g. Ein Beispiel ist die verschiedene Sprache. Although perhaps German is one of the stranger cases, given that I've seen the English phrase "Made in Germany" on some political posters around here: https://www.cdu.de/aktuelles/cdu-deutschlands/mainzer-erklae... This is also a problem for trade between EU member states. There's other examples of course, e.g. the Cybertruck is not road legal in the EU. Though I can hardly say that's "in the room" given how unpopular the vehicle is even in the USA. |
| |
| ▲ | dpc050505 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Having guardrails against diarrhea lettuce is just reasonable policy. | |
| ▲ | fatbird 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The U.S. also has a huge amount of trade barriers that are indirect against the rest of the world. Don't act like the U.S. is the victim here. One example: In Canada, there's a vibrant french language film industry, meaning films in french that originate and are made in Canada and then marketed abroad. The english language equivalent is anemic because decades ago, as part of trade negotiations, the Canadian gov't gutted subsidies for english language film production as a trade barrier against Hollywood. |
|