Taiwan's High 20% Tariff Rate Linked To Intel Investment (notebookcheck.net) 127
EreIamJH writes: German tech newsletter Notebookcheck is reporting that the unexpectedly high 20% tariff the U.S. recently imposed on Taiwan is intended to pressure TSMC to buy a 49% minority stake in Intel -- including an IP transfer and to spend $400 billion in the U.S., in addition to the $165 billion previously planned.
3.5 years left (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point everyone is just going to wait until this moron is out of the office. Trump has shown to be not just clueless on how tariffs work but also completely unreliable and a bad faith negotiator. Didn't he just agree to a trade deal with the EU last week and now he's again threatening 35% tariffs on them? At least Canada had the "best" trade deal for a few years before it suddenly being labelled the "worst" by the same man who signed it and getting hit with tariffs.
It's going to be 3.5 years of damage mitigation followed by a return to sanity. But things won't go back to normal. The world will go back to sanity but without any notion that the USA can be considered a reliable trading partner going forward.
Re:3.5 years left (Score:5, Funny)
So you're an optimist. Trump's not leaving in 3.5 years, he's dying in office.
Re:3.5 years left (Score:5, Insightful)
And even if he does, or doesn't make it until the end, do you actually think his allies and backers, and the Republican Party itself, is ever going to give the Democrats a chance to hold any kind of power again?
Re:3.5 years left (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:3.5 years left (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure many liberals, communists and moderates thought the same thing of the Brown Shirts in late Weimar Germany.
There was a very nasty surprise waiting for them. Once you gain the levers of power, and you are sufficiently motivated and unhinged from any kind of sense of obligation, decorum or constraint, you don't have to be a majority. You just have to be willing to use raw applications of power. Illegal immigrants are not the only people that are going to end up getting sent to Alligator Alcatraz. They're just the test subjects for the inevitable liquidation of all political opposition.
Re:3.5 years left (Score:4, Informative)
Plus it's not just MAGA. You don't need much to galvanize a base. Just find a core issue they care about and tie it to policies you already have in place. You run a policy on kicking out immigrants? Well now you have racists on board. You have a housing crisis? Well blame that on immigrants too, now you have the poor people on board. Got some examples of violent crime? Just run the news cycle claiming that the immigrants are responsible for crime disproportionally even if they aren't, now you to some white middle class people on board. All on one policy.
This is why dictators start by controlling the news. If they can control the news, they can control the narrative, if they can control the narrative they can bend it to get more support. You don't need to go back to the Nazis for this, you can find examples of this in many cases of pieces of shit consolidating power over a country for that, just look to Turkey, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure many liberals, communists and moderates thought the same thing of the Brown Shirts in late Weimar Germany.
There was a very nasty surprise waiting for them. Once you gain the levers of power, and you are sufficiently motivated and unhinged from any kind of sense of obligation, decorum or constraint, you don't have to be a majority. You just have to be willing to use raw applications of power. Illegal immigrants are not the only people that are going to end up getting sent to Alligator Alcatraz. They're just the test subjects for the inevitable liquidation of all political opposition.
And Britain has to avoid the same thing with Nigel Farage.
If we cant avoid that horrible frog-faced pitfall we, as a nation, deserve to die.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the US system is not setup for majority rule.
First, you have the electoral college.
Then, 2 senators per state, no matter the population.
Add in the very heavy and shameless gerrymandering of congressional districts.
Then, the Senate filibuster.
Finally, the Supreme Court lifetime appointment, now more than half illegitimate.
All of these are significant obstacles to the majority taking back power from this lawless administration and complicit congress.
The US constitution is not a suicide pac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The 27th amendment was ratified in 1992. That's in my lifetime, not sure about yours.
It was proposed in 1789, though. Nobody has that kind of time.
The process for amending the US constitution is daunting. It starts with a 2/3rd majority in both houses of Congress, and ends with 3/4 of state legislatures signing on. It's difficult to imagine anything making it past those steps nowadays.
The other alternative is a constitutional convention, which has never happened.
Re: (Score:3)
We should be glad it's so hard to amend. Imagine what Trump would be doing right now with his majority in both houses of Congress if it wasn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we got to this point because it has been so hard to amend that all the problems I listed remained for hundreds of years.
Other western democracies have a more rational process for updating their constitution. States, too.
Also, if you look at SCOTUS rulings in the laat five years, you can make the case that many amendments of the constitution are just being ignored. If you can just ignore what's already in the constitution, why even bother amending it ?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say we could lower the requirements for making an amendment just by flipping a switch. Now Trump with his majority in both houses of congress can change everything instead of being hemmed in by the constitution. Is that what you really want?
Better to be patient and look for reform during less partisan times. We've already shown this can be done.
we probably lost it all (Score:2)
Amendments are desperately needed.
To address Citizen's United ruling.
To take the decision of abortion away from court ruling.
To clarify, one way or another, the intent and application of the second amendment.
Under the current political climate, there is essentially no way forward. This country can no longer adapt, it is at a dead end.
Re: we probably lost it all (Score:2)
We're going to have a revolution, get conquered because we become weak from infighting, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed you don't have to look very far to see this in action. Consider Texas' move to quickly gerrymander the few Democratic seats into Republican. Or North Carolina where the state legislature has drawn districts such that republicans will always hold the state house in perpetuity, regardless of whether the people elect a Democrat governor. The brazenness with which the GOP is acting now is really frightening. They used to at least pretend to believe in democracy and the constitution. Not anymore. Faced
Re: (Score:2)
And even if he does, or doesn't make it until the end, do you actually think his allies and backers, and the Republican Party itself, is ever going to give the Democrats a chance to hold any kind of power again?
No chance. But... and I say this with little enthusiasm for the idea, most of the possible successors won't be so emotionally based that they flip-flop direction several times a week on any given policy. Ultimately, it'll just mean things get worse on a much more linear progression, rather than herky-jerky like today, but at least it would be predictable. Trump is like a toddler with ADHD when it comes to policy, and for some reason congress refuses to step up and remind him that the president isn't suppose
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to keep the GOP from infighting and eating itself? JD Vance? Marco Rubio?
Hilarious.
When Trump finally kicks off, there's going to be a massive GOP civil war where all of these sycophant yes-men are going to start backstabbing each other until they're all politically toxic.
Re:3.5 years left (Score:4)
Every day I wake up waiting to hear that he was found dead and bloated on his golden toilet.
Re: (Score:3)
That somebody gave me on my birthday deathbed
I am smellin’ like the rose
That somebody gave me ’cause I’m dead and bloated
Re: (Score:2)
But then you would get JD Vance.
Re:3.5 years left (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody will follow Vance. He has no crowd work skills.
Re: 3.5 years left (Score:2)
Various fascist factions will openly fight to control the White House. Actual votes or popularity won't matter. The winner will be the one who is the strongest, the most violent, and the most willing to commit brutal acts.
Re: 3.5 years left (Score:2)
Sure, I can agree with that to a degree, but politicking matters. The winner will also be someone with sufficient support.
Re: (Score:2)
All we need is for the Republican Party to lose their control of the US Congress after the mid-terms, and everything Trump is doing would stop. The US Congress is where the power to set tariffs is, not the president, so without control of the Congress, Trump will suddenly find all of his attitude won't get things done. Congress could STOP all of this right now if Johnson weren't such a pussy and would tell Trump that Congress gets to set any tariffs, and it would need to be voted on for it to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you are right, but with this SCOTUS and all the other trump loyalist judges...
Re: 3.5 years left (Score:2)
" Congress could STOP all of this right now if Johnson weren't such a pussy and would tell Trump that Congress gets to set any tariffs, and it would need to be voted on for it to happen."
Johnson is a death cultist, he wants to immanentize the eschaton as it were, Trump is perfect to him because he is increasing the chance of the end times.
Re: (Score:2)
Johnson isn't a pussy, this is all standard Republican policy. Don't kid yourself Trump is leading any of this, he isn't. He's a man in his 80s with Alzheimers who can barely put together coherent sentences any more. He's the vehicle, not the driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Who everyone in the Congress hates. They won't blindly follow him.
And we know what kind of popularity a VP commands in the general electorate: none. VPs have name recognition and that's it.
When Trump goes, this whole thing is going to fly apart like a cracked flywheel.
Re: (Score:2)
JD Vance almost certainly wouldn't win a fair Presidential election. He's even less popular than Dan Quayle.
Of course, "fair" is the critical word here.
Re: (Score:2)
As much of a corrupt piece of shit he is, he at least wouldn't damage international relations the way Trump is. It would still be damaging, but it would be more minimal and more controlled.
Re: (Score:2)
An optimist would have Trump die in office also, but in less than 3.5 years. I fear modern medicine will keep him alive longer than that, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Not modern medicine. AI. Be prepared for AI la Presidenta. They'll conjure images of him at meetings, signing meaningless EOs, opening non-existent factories, etc. Just use your imagination, the Maggots and Republicans certainly will.
Re: (Score:2)
Be prepared for AI la Presidenta.
Why female?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just Trump.
It's the entire MAGA Republican Party and their Project 2025.
Trump is just their useful idiot for now. They have many more waiting in the wings.
Their goal is to permanently establish a fascist dictatorship. They have made good progress.
It's damage will be permanent. They may be some return to sanity but we all have get used to living under an authoritarian dictatorship.
The rest of the world is rapidly moving to disassociate itself from the US since it is now completely unreliable.
Re:3.5 years left (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. One thing that is critical in all negotiations is keeping your word afterwards. Trump has now proven to have no honor or integrity at all, so negotiating with him does not really make sense and nobody will expect to get anything long-term out of it. Hence even "disastrous" tariffs matter very little as they can be expected to be quite temporary and his threats lose credibility. The only reason we are not at a point yet where nobody takes Trump seriously anymore is because he is so utterly disconnected from how diplomacy and international politics work that people need time to adjust.
Trump's not going anywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
He will get the nomination. Republican primary voters think he's the second coming and the GOP has no bench because nobody wants to challenge Trump except DeSantis and people hate him.
The Supreme Court will let him run, because they're corrupt as hell.
Our entire media is owned by billionaires who won't allow anything bad to be said about hair fuhrer. I watched a dozen or so journalists dog walked for going against King Trump.
Overwhelming propaganda + sane washing will get him to 47% and voter suppression will make up the last.
Trump gets a 3rd term and our Republic dies.
The only ones that can stop it are the left wing & centrists.
The Centrists don't believe it's gonna happen because they trust voters (I'll wait for you to stop laughing).
The lefties hate the centrists too much to do anything about voter suppression. They hate centrists more than fascists.
So we're doomed. Trump probably won't die, he's got too much medical care and his parents lived into their 90s.
The only question now is which Trump will succeed him on the throne. My money's on Barron.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump gets a 3rd term and our Republic dies.
Um... it is already dead. It died when the first unconstitutional Executive Order was abided. But of course, Clarence Thomas already showed that failure through decay was imminent. Roe v Wade was the final nail. The EOs are the dirt that are burying the body.
Gavin Newsom might save us (Score:2)
Major problem the Democrats have is they are all prim and proper so they don't fight tooth and nail to win. Newsom is extremely ambitious and has figured out that if he want to be president he's going to have to fight.
And For all his faults and there are many he is at least not a fascist.
Re: Gavin Newsom might save us (Score:2)
"And For all his faults and there are many he is at least not a fascist."
Newsom wants to force medicate the homeless and celebrated when the supremes declared it was OK to destroy their shelters. He sleeps on a big bed stuffed with Getty money. Of course he's a fascist. He's just a nicer looking and sounding one than Cheeto Benito.
I have total and absolute control of slashdot (Score:2)
When that happens purple monkey dish water will make the banana rise up to the heavens and that's probably going to be a problem for the chickens who are programming software with the llm that the training donuts are using comments from the slash Dot to make the almonds are poisoned by astronauts go round.
Why yes I am aware that a llm is being rained on my comments. Why for you so ask?
Re:3.5 years left (Score:5, Informative)
Let us not forget that by the law the President is not allowed to set tariff rates unilaterally outside of war and great crisis, for obvious reasons, and the entire justification Trump is making where he should right now is that the trade deficits should be considered a national emergency. It's in court right now [pbs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What law? Don't say the constitution. That is little more than a guideline at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the law even specifically mention tariffs? Some analysts say that it doesn't, but then they could be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, you think you'll remove the Trump party in 3.5 years?
You wish, but you won't.
Re:3.5 years left (Score:4, Interesting)
There are no real trade deals, la Presidenta does not care about them. What he cares about is getting Americans to accept 15% tariffs on their purchases. He cannot do that domestically without a U.S. sales tax. So he does the next best thing, threaten countries with 50% or whatever and then "accepts" a 15%. He does this for two reasons: (1) he gets to honk on about his "deal" to the Maggots which helps keep them in line, and (2) he has to help pay for the gaping hole he's going to leave the Treasury receipts for his Big Mindless Budget.
That there are no deals is easily seen because there is nothing to see.....literally. A real trade deal takes years to negotiate and then the actual text can be picked over by economists and the press. la Presidenta has neutered the press and is in the process of neutering the organizations for which economists work. And we never get to see the text. So there is never a real news story from the corporate press about how the deals are fake.
An easy example is his claiming Japan is going to give him $500 billion to play with in a sovereign wealth fund. Japan's total GDP for 2024 was $4.026 Trillion USD. So he's claiming Japan is going to hand over roughly 12.5% of a years GDP to make his dick appear bigger than it really is. Even the pols in Japan are laughing at him because they know Japan has no intention of doing such a thing.
Another example is him claiming Europe is going invest $600 Billion directly in the U.S. during the next three years and spend $750 billion of U.S. energy exports through 2028. (Think CO2 emissions). However, "So EU energy imports (at $64.55 billion) are about 26 percent of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on American energy each year under the framework agreement." (https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5435369-the-numbers-in-trumps-eu-trade-deal-are-a-joke/)
Besides, energy is a market and the leadership of Europe cannot tell their industries what to buy in energy. Japan is similar, their government is in no way able to take $500 and ship it to el Bunko.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think this was Trump? ROFLMAO. This is too intelligent for that buffoon.
In the very short summary:
including an IP transfer
So they get a 49% ownership of Intel and Intel gets their IP.
I doubt it will work so transparently, but the goal is obvious.
Re: 3.5 years left (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For crying out loud, don't fall for Trump's BS.
Other countries don't pay the tariffs. Americans do. It's a surcharge that the importer i.e. Americans have to pay.
Foreign countries just don't like tariffs because they make their products less competitive. But in essence a tariff is nothing but a tax on foreign goods. And as with all taxes you have to pay them.
The founders incidentally were quite clear on this. Hence they reserved this power for Congress and did not vest it in the presidency.
Sorry for the language... (Score:2)
Random perspectives from Asia (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You have come up with a whole new prejudice. We do not treat our closest allies like dirt, Trump does. He is not yet dictator for life.
No sane person will follow your logic until 2028. If Trump manages to stick around or his successor continues his horrendous stupidity, then people will have the right to think that.
Until then: Keep Calm and Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is perhaps the other way around. The populace of Trumpistan are dicks, and their democratically and freely elected president is a representative of the populace.
How much time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not very long. At some point he will overdo it and then it all comes crashing down. I think he is close to that point already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, like silencing voices that point out facts will make those facts go away. But these retards seem to actually think that.
This seems exceptionally stupid... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, 49% isn't a controlling share; but when Intel's current problems include technical deficiencies relative to TSMC and shareholders who want more shareholder value it doesn't seem like it would take much wheedling on TSMC's part to arrange a deal that looks like a shiny little technology transfer; but essentially involves having Intel management take an ax to their R&D and engineering capabilities in order to make line go up and keep shambling on as the discount brand to which TSMC transfers some of its older or less loved processes in order to get credit for 'investment'.
It's not clear that merely recapitalizing the company would necessarily fix it; but they'd either have to try to make it work or try to chop it up for finance meat; while TSMC is probably the single best-placed company to offer it a quick, easy, permanent position of inferiority; which seems like what you wouldn't want if you are trying to preserve or expand domestic capability.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Incentives work for somebody that is relatively small and wants to grow. They do not work for somebody large that has succumbed to greed and arrogance.
Re:This seems exceptionally stupid... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This seems exceptionally stupid... (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is TSMC is a fab-shop. They do one thing and do that well. And they have customers that are smart and agile and see what it is they get. While Intel has this problem that they are their own customer, so there is no "your process sucks!" from the ones making the CPU designs to the ones manufacturing that design. For example, AMD manufactures at TSMC, because the offer makes sense. If TMSC stops making sense, they go somewhere else. TSMC knows that and that keeps them honest and cutting edge. Intel manufacturing processes and designs where cutting edge at some time. Then their designs went to shit because of greed and stupidity. Then the manufacturing went to shit. Currently, the last thing they have is going to shit as well: Their reputation. They are done for and there is no coming back.
As to the reason Intel cannot compete while having access to the same equipment, that one is simple. In their arrogance, they lost people that can drive things and get to the next level. Kind of like Boeing does not know how to design planes anymore because they have not done it for so long. Intel did play it safe, relying on even 2nd rated thing selling well because of their name. And they did that long enough to only have 2nd rated offerings now. As a result, they have nobody left that can make 1st rated products, because having the tools is not enough. You need to have the people that can do it too and Intel does not have those anymore. Do you think that, at this time, anybody really good will even apply for a job at Intel? Hardly. Bureaucracy, fossilized thinking, inadequate compensation, random firings, etc. They are only getting the dross, and that does not cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the only thing that can help is anti-trust, really enforced (people go to prison), because that keeps competition alive. For Intel, it is too late. For others (like Microsoft or Boeing) it is too. These all need to die for things to get better. As soon as you have something too close to a monopoly, the enterprises making it goes to shit, no exceptions. Well, sometimes in family-run businesses, because they can have other values than greed. And in some FOSS, but that is probably a more fragile state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think the US can do that anymore. It would work, no doubt, but it requires a voter population with some general minimal level of insight. I do not see that in the US. Too many voters that do not even understand basic things anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. What I am thinking is that people may have been more aware of what they did not understand and were listening more to experts. But I may be completely wrong on that.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like a much more polite to offer incentives to Intel, [...]but it seemed to be yielding good results for as long as it lasted.
What part of what Intel "accomplished" while it was receiving those incentives was yielding good results? They failed at a whole-ass process under those incentives, and laid the foundation for another whole-ass process which is failing right now.
Why is profit not sufficient incentive?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not clear that merely recapitalizing the company would necessarily fix it;
It is pretty clear, it will not. Yield, process and design issues are lack of engineering skill and experience. That cannot be fixed with money on the level we are talking here. Intel clearly is yet another case of having slaughtered the Goose that lays golden eggs. And you do not get a second one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
It's technology theft. Europe has the tech, Taiwan has the experience. Trump is trying to do what he keeps accusing China of - forcing a partnership with a foreign company so that America can steal their technology.
Europe, Taiwan, and China all have an interest in making sure this doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel is moribund. Any industry analyst could tell you that. They can't compete with TSMC. Trump (and Biden, and most Washington politicians) have been told by numerous advisors that America needs access to cutting-edge semiconductors. Since TSMC seems to be the only fab left on the bleeding edge, in Trump land, the smart thing to do is force TSMC to buy Intel (or at least their foundry business) and use it to produce TSMC nodes state-side. Which is something TSMC has signaled that the do NOT want to d
Way to achieve supply chain independence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TSMC's ownership of Intel foundry will give TSMC competitive advantage to make sure Intel never succeeds again.
As far as that is needed. Intel is clearly done for. They are now 10 years behind or more.
Re: (Score:2)
10 years? Nah, Intel 3 is a pretty solid node and it's competitive with N5-family nodes from only a few years ago. 18A is looking to be a dumpster fire, though. And Intel 3 was too late to market (and the products released on it were too few and too far behind their competition, e.g. Intel 3 suffered from a lack of compelling designs to really sell it to foundry customers).
Re: (Score:2)
The Intel 3 transistors work fine, but if the yields weren't disastrous why did they need to have so much made at TSMC? The yields are pretty clearly bad and the Xeons is all they have the capacity for.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that thing with the disastrous yields? Yield is a skill and experience issue and a design that cannot really be fabbed is worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump, with all these tariffs, is basically saying that the US is unable to compete. Its industries require protectionism to succeed. Intel is failing (probably similar to a lot of other US companies) because management focuses too much on pure financial performance - incentives are based on short term performance - rather than carefully planning for the longer term. Eventually the bill comes due.
To fix this, attitudes need to be changed (but I am not so naive to think that they will).
From TSMC's point of v
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of Intel, they certainly can't compete. But then Samsung can't either. It's almost like Trump should be cozying up to South Korea and forming a semiconductor coalition instead of trying to peddle off Intel's failures to TSMC.
Re: (Score:2)
TSMC stumbled on some essential ideas and they aren't sharing. Don't see how a coalition of the lame would help.
Whole semiconductor industry needs to get together and just pay TSMC a fuckton of money for all their secrets.
It's just a national sales tax (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it will take a bunch of idiot kids to be conditioned long enough to gain working control.
It takes YEARS and trump is senile and getting more so over time. The best thing possible is that he was too old when he got in. The successor will have it all in place but will he have the cultists necessary to pull it off?
Re: (Score:2)
That makes no sense. The Americans being hit hardest by tariffs are importers. Guess who made a shitton of money off moving manufacturing overseas over the last 40+ years? Importers. Lots of the 1% got fat off cheap goods from China they could mark up to make a killing.
At some point this will go disastrously wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
All the moves Trump is making are not informed by any actual understanding of reality. So far, the ones he attacks manage to buffer the blows and find reasonable compromises grounded in reality. But at some point this will go really, really wrong. The thing the US already lost is being regarded as a reliable partner. That will long-term mean everybody will find other partners and it also means any "promised" investments in the US will be delayed, drawn out, made half-assed or plainly will not materialize, because they will be seen as sunk cost.
But at some point, Trump's approach (which cannot really be called a "strategy") will begin to fail. The US will lose access to some really needed medication, some important tech goods, or some important raw materials, and then it will look as weak as it has become and people will stop trying to accommodate its whims. In the "small world" real-estate Trump sort-of understands, that does not happen. But on a world stage, you have one party you deal with and 100 more that carefully watch and adjust their policies. Hence one weakness and you are done bullying "partners". And since Trump does understand almost nothing, he is sure to step into it pretty soon.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has already failed, and there's no coming back. The drive away from education and the rush to "AI" out front at all costs should have told you.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. But the perception still needs to catch up with the reality.
Re:At some point this will go disastrously wrong (Score:4, Informative)
But at some point
Didn't the USA just post economic figures that made Trump fire the labour statistic chief out of rage?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't disagree with what you said with what you said about losing access to goods - it could happen but I think it is fairly low probability. The real problem is what you mentioned in the first paragraph. As other countries route around the damage and trade with the US less and with others more, the dollar will weaken. The US accounts for less and less of world trade percentage-wise. As this happens, the US dollar will lose its central role in the world economy. Maybe this will provoke a financial crisis
Re: (Score:3)
All the moves Trump is making are not informed by any actual understanding of reality. So far, the ones he attacks manage to buffer the blows and find reasonable compromises grounded in reality. But at some point this will go really, really wrong. The thing the US already lost is being regarded as a reliable partner. That will long-term mean everybody will find other partners and it also means any "promised" investments in the US will be delayed, drawn out, made half-assed or plainly will not materialize, because they will be seen as sunk cost.
But at some point, Trump's approach (which cannot really be called a "strategy") will begin to fail. The US will lose access to some really needed medication, some important tech goods, or some important raw materials, and then it will look as weak as it has become and people will stop trying to accommodate its whims. In the "small world" real-estate Trump sort-of understands, that does not happen. But on a world stage, you have one party you deal with and 100 more that carefully watch and adjust their policies. Hence one weakness and you are done bullying "partners". And since Trump does understand almost nothing, he is sure to step into it pretty soon.
What will happen first is that things in the US will get expensive. Long before the shortages, shortages will be a result of people not being able to afford medication, food and fuel.
This will be good for the 1% in the short term but whilst wealth does not "trickle down", poverty certainly "trickles up". Ironic that the huge advantage early US industrialists had over Europeans is that they knew that they needed their workers to be able to afford to buy what they produced in order to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
Very insightful. I am concerned that the failure mode will be nuclear bombs dropping. A little more dramatic than what you are seeing; however, it is interesting that both of us see the fall of America from grace.
It has a name (Score:2)
Extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump enjoys blackmail (Score:2)
The US has outsourced its industry over decades. Now, suddenly, this is the fault of its trading partners?
Interesting times. The US may still have enough power to pull this kind of blackmail off. Or, perhaps, not... Time will tell.
Post-economics (Score:2)
What Trump advocates for is post-economics trade policy.
The post-economics extortion is best to be modelled by the policy ideas of little kids.
listen up zoomers (Score:2)
There is a viable alternative to Fox news and it's not NPR: it's called the Slashdot comment section.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait what? Exactly which American firms benefitted from these tech transfers?